fomo_get_user_by_handle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and does not disclose what the response contains, whether the handle is case-sensitive, whether it returns null/error for unknown handles, or any rate-limit/auth requirements. For a simple lookup tool this is a moderate gap, but with zero annotations the description should add more context.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the lookup key efficiently. It could earn a 5 by adding a brief usage note, but as-is it is appropriately concise.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. An agent knows what to pass but not what to expect back, how errors are signaled, or how this differs from fomo_get_user. Given the sibling list includes fomo_get_user and fomo_search_users, the description should clarify the distinction to avoid mis-selection.

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 must compensate. It names the parameter 'handle' in the description ('by handle'), which adds a little meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. However, it does not specify the expected format (e.g., exact handle, case sensitivity, whether it includes the @ prefix). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description at least identifies the key parameter's role.

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?

The description 'Get a fomo.family user by handle' clearly states the verb (get), the resource (a fomo.family user), and the lookup key (handle). It distinguishes itself from siblings like fomo_get_user (which likely fetches by a different identifier) and fomo_search_users (which implies query-based search), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage: call this when you have a handle and need a single user. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like fomo_get_user or fomo_search_users. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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