user-info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Get comprehensive user information') and efficiently lists all included data fields without 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with read-only annotations and an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It clearly states what will be returned, and combined with the output schema, provides complete context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is appropriate given no params exist. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses specific verbs ('Get comprehensive user information') and lists exact data fields (user ID, full name, email, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on tasks, projects, or other entities.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is stated, the description implicitly positions it as the tool for general user profile data, contrasting with sibling tools that retrieve specific resources (e.g., find-tasks, find-projects). Some explicit guidance on exclusions would improve clarity.

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