bale_get_user_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but the verb 'Get' plus an output schema make the read-only nature evident. It adds the field list, yet omits any auth requirements, visibility limits (e.g. non-contacts), or rate-limit behavior, which would be valuable for an un-annotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated field list is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition is minimally adequate — it says what is returned. It still leaves the agent guessing how to obtain a valid user_id and whether authorization or relationship constraints apply.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single user_id parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by user_id' merely restates the parameter name; it gives no format, source (e.g. bale_search_user results, dialog peers), or validity constraints.

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 (get) and resource (user profile) and enumerates the returned fields (name, about, username, avatar). It implies a distinction from bale_get_me by requiring a user_id, but never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a profile given a user_id. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bale_search_user or bale_get_me, no note on whether the target must be a contact, and no exclusions.

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