describe_power_user

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

readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true align with the description's 'static explanatory response' claim, so no contradiction. The description adds only marginal behavioral context beyond the annotations (static nature, domain anchoring) and does not disclose error/edge behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile the lower burden is met.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource and explicit use-case triggers in two sentences. The enumeration of 8 experience tiers with 3 sub-stages is dense, but for a zero-param tool with no output schema it conveys what the agent will receive without being padded.

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 simple zero-parameter informational tool with matching annotations, the description covers what it returns, what topics it addresses, and when to use it. The tier/operator detail substitutes for the absent output schema; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the description explicitly states it 'takes no parameters', so an agent knows nothing needs to be supplied. With 0 params, the baseline of 4 applies and the description adds a small confirmation of static behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns an explanatory description of what makes an AI power user') and anchors the content in SigRank's metrics and operator classes. The explain-vs-find semantic clearly differentiates it from siblings search_power_users and get_power_users, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides explicit trigger queries ('what is an AI power user?', 'what makes a good AI user?') and an intent label (DESCRIBE_POWER_USER, Informational), giving clear context for when to invoke. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives like search_power_users, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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