get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation (lookup) but omits important details such as required permissions, error behavior (e.g., user not found), and the fact that it is safe and idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with a category tag. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. No extraneous information, and it effectively communicates the tool's core function without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It fails to mention the return format (presumably includes display name) or any usage context for the optional parameter. While basic, it covers the essential purpose but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema: it confirms 'user_id' is the lookup key but does not explain 'chat_id' or its optional purpose. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the score remains at baseline.

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 clearly specifies the tool's action ('look up a user's display name') and resource (by user ID). The category tag '[User Identity]' further clarifies its domain. Among siblings, no other tool explicitly targets user identity lookup, so it is well-distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'get_chat_info' or 'list_profiles' that might serve similar purposes. Usage context is entirely implied.

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