get_user_info

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The word 'Retrieve' indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose error behavior, required authorization, or what profile data is returned, leaving substantial room for inference.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action verb. The only minor issue is that 'profile data' is somewhat redundant with 'user account information', but otherwise there is no fluff.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and resource but does not describe the structure of the returned data or any edge cases. Given the absence of annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 covers 100% of the parameter and even documents the special value 'me', so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and names a clear resource ('user account information and profile data'), making the tool's basic function identifiable. It is implicitly distinct from all listed siblings, which are file, search, email, and database operations, though 'profile data' is slightly vague.

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 implies the tool should be used when user account information is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Since none of the sibling tools are close alternatives, the implicit context is acceptable but not fully stated.

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