wattpad_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return format ('JSON con biografia, obras publicadas y seguidores') and clarifies that it retrieves the public profile, which is useful. It does not contradict annotations. This matches the baseline for tools with annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second describes the return value. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no filler, and every word contributes to clarity. Very efficient.

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 (one parameter, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema (the description itself notes the return format), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the return type and content. Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for a read-only getter.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'username' parameter, explaining it as 'Nombre de usuario de Wattpad' (Wattpad username). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 states the action: 'Obtiene el perfil publico de un usuario de Wattpad' (Gets the public profile of a Wattpad user). It specifies the resource (user profile) and the scope (public). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous given the tool name and the clear resource.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose is obvious, there is no explicit routing to this tool over siblings like get_story or get_part_text.

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