x_user_get

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: it returns compact profiles, includes a 'missing' list for unresolvable references, and clarifies that 'me' resolves to the authenticated user. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only lookup.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by terse but valuable details about accepted identifiers and return shape. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the return-value details are already structured, and the description covers the main input and the high-value 'missing' behavior. The main completeness gap is the undocumented 'raw' parameter, but the required path to a correct call is well specified.

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?

The schema already documents 'users' as 'user id, @handle, handle, or me', and the description reinforces that while adding the 'bare handle' variant and return-shape context. However, the 'raw' boolean is left undocumented in both schema and description, leaving one of two parameters without semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Batch fetch') and names the exact resource ('X (Twitter) user profiles'), then enumerates accepted reference forms — numeric id, @handle, bare handle, and 'me'. This makes the tool's role distinct from sibling tools like x_user_search and x_timeline_user.

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?

It clearly states the intended use: batch-fetching profiles when you have user identifiers or want the authenticated user via 'me'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not conditions, but the input-forms description implies the boundary against query-based user search.

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