Get User Info

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' largely repeats the safety profile. However, 'anonymous' (no auth needed) and 'private account data is never available' add genuine behavioral context the annotations do not carry, telling the agent the call is safe and non-privileged.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and followed by scope constraints; there is little waste. The 'Read-only' clause is mildly redundant with readOnlyHint, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating what the profile returns. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; it doesn't mention behavior for nonexistent, suspended, or deleted accounts, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already specifies the username format and the 'no u/ prefix' rule. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or validation, so the baseline 3 applies given the schema does the 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 names a specific resource (Reddit user profile) and enumerates the returned fields — karma, account age, employee/mod/verified flags, profile description. This distinguishes it implicitly from siblings like get_user_posts and get_user_comments. It stops short of explicitly routing against those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for a user's profile, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. get_user_posts for a user's submissions) appear. The clause 'private account data is never available' sets a useful scope boundary, which lifts it above bare absence of guidance.

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