nexus_get_user_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it clarifies the v2 API backing, that it bypasses v1 quota, and enumerates the returned fields. This gives the agent confidence about the call being non-mutating and quota-friendly without needing to open the output schema.

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 tight and well-ordered: purpose first, then the key usage constraint, then the API/quota note, then a concise list of returned fields. Every sentence carries information and none are wasted. It is front-loaded with the most important information for tool selection and invocation.

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 read-only, idempotent user-profile getter, the description covers the scope, lookup keys, exclusivity requirement, API family, and quota behavior. The output schema exists, so the listed return fields are a useful summary rather than a necessity. Nothing critical for calling this tool correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a descriptive label and example. The description adds the key semantic constraint that exactly one of member_id or username must be provided, which is not expressed as required in the schema. It also frames both parameters as lookup keys for the same public resource. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pairing: 'Get a public Nexus Mods user profile' by member ID or exact username. This immediately distinguishes it from search tools and the sibling nexus_get_user_by_name, which is username-specific. The v2 API mention and field list further pin down its identity.

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 gives explicit calling guidance: 'Provide exactly one of member_id or username.' It also adds the v2 GraphQL API distinction and the note that it does not consume v1 REST rate-limit quota, which helps an agent understand when this tool is preferable. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, so it falls just below a 5.

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