horizon_torn_getUserLookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets' data (implying read-only) but does not mention caching, rate limits, authorization requirements (e.g., API key usage), or how the data is scoped. The schema hints at optional authentication via key, but the description does not clarify.

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 extremely terse (one phrase) but at the expense of clarity. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it under-specified. A concise description should be clear and useful; this one is too vague to be helpful.

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 lack of output schema and the vague description, the tool's completeness is low. The user does not know what data the tool returns (e.g., list of user names, IDs, or other attributes). The description fails to distinguish this tool from many similar sibling tools, leaving a significant gap in understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters (key, comment, timestamp). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides sufficient information about 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 'Get all available user selections' is vague. It does not specify what constitutes a 'user selection' (e.g., a list of user IDs, names, or dropdown options). Compared to sibling tools like horizon_torn_getUserBasicInformation or horizon_torn_getUserProfile, the purpose is unclear and could be interpreted as a lookup table or a list of available users.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or cases where other tools (e.g., getUserBasicInformation, getUserLookup) would be more appropriate. The absence of usage direction makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.

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