getCounterpartyUserInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool exposes PII if misused, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any other side effects, but the nature of 'get' implies read-only.

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 only two sentences plus a hint, all front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words or details, making it easy to read quickly.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify what information is returned about the counterparty user, how to use the parameters correctly, and does not differentiate from similar tools beyond the hint.

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 input schema has two parameters (originalUid, orderId) with no descriptions and 0% schema coverage. The description only mentions 'specific order' and 'counterparty', leaving the role of originalUid ambiguous. The description does not clarify which parameter corresponds to what.

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 gets information about a counterparty user in a specific order, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like getAccountInfo or getAffiliateUserInfo by focusing on counterparty and order context.

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 'Agent hint' explicitly tells the agent to only query the counterparty of the current active order and not to enumerate UIDs or call in a loop, with the reason that it exposes PII of unrelated users. This is excellent usage guidance.

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