Get user summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists data returned, not side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or idempotent.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity, especially given the number of data points listed.

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?

The description lacks details on the output structure (no output schema) and fails to clarify terms like 'last activity' or 'rank.' For a tool returning a multi-field summary, more context is needed.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., does not explain the time range for 'recent' or how count limits work).

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'fuller summary' including specific data types (recent games, achievements, last activity, rank, awards count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects.

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 this tool is for a comprehensive overview but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternative tools (e.g., ra_user_recent_achievements for only achievements). No guidance on when not to use it.

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