get_user

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'allowlisted public' fields are exposed, which is real behavioral context about data filtering. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note appended after a semicolon. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the 'allowlisted public fields' phrase usefully hints at the response scope. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves username and the interaction of max_chars with the biography only lightly addressed, which is thin for a two-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It does explain that max_chars limits the biography, adding meaning beyond the bare 'Max Chars' title and its 1–10000 bounds. username is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('public profile fields') and adds the meaningful qualifier 'allowlisted', which scopes what is returned. It does not differentiate from siblings like read_post or list_user_posts, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search, read_topic, or list_user_posts. The only hint at a condition is that fields are 'public'/'allowlisted', which is a scope statement rather than usage routing. An agent must infer context entirely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.