get_user_info

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds only the endpoint and resource name, with no additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements or session fallback. This is minimal but does not contradict the annotation.

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, compact sentence that includes the resource and endpoint. It is efficient with no unnecessary words, earning a high score.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, read-only operation, output schema available), the sparse description is mostly sufficient. However, it omits any indication of what the user info contains or when to use it, but the output schema compensates. A score of 4 reflects near-adequacy.

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 description coverage is 100% and includes a clear explanation of the optional business_token parameter (defaults to login session). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the resource (business token user info) and includes the HTTP endpoint (GET /v1/business/userinfo), but lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves'), making it less direct than ideal. It does distinguish from sibling 'get_token_info' by focusing on user info.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_token_info or login. The description does not mention session-based usage or fallback behavior; that information only appears in the parameter schema.

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