get_user_profiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for resolving emails,' hinting at return content, but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether it's read-only, how it handles invalid IDs, if results are paginated, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds context. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and utility, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers the purpose and hints at use cases but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints. This is adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to rely on.

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 schema fully documents the 'userIds' parameter (array of UUIDs, minItems: 1). The description adds minimal value beyond this, only implying the IDs come from 'reservation user_ids.' No additional syntax or format details are provided, aligning with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get multiple user profiles by their IDs.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('user profiles'), and distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_user_profile' (singular) by indicating it handles multiple IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_user' for broader lookups.

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 implied usage context: 'Useful for resolving emails from reservation user_ids' suggests it's for batch lookups tied to reservations. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'get_user_profile' (single) or 'search_user' (query-based), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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