getCounterpartyUserInfo

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

With readOnlyHint=true already providing the safety profile, the description goes beyond annotations by flagging that misuse exposes PII of unrelated users. This is meaningful behavioral context that explains why callers must avoid enumeration. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, both useful: one states the purpose, the other provides a guardrail. There is no filler, no restatement of the tool name, and no redundant detail.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup, the description supplies the key operational constraint (current active order) and the main risk (PII exposure). It is less explicit about the exact return shape, but the core invocation guidance is sufficient for an agent that already holds the current order context.

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%, so the description bears the burden of explaining orderId and originalUid. It provides only indirect semantics: 'specific order' relates to orderId, and the UID warning clarifies originalUid is a user identifier, but it does not define the relationship between the two parameters or which are required.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Get'), a concrete resource ('counterparty user'), and a scoping context ('in a specific order'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many other getters in the sibling list, and the agent hint reinforces that it targets only the current active order.

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 is explicit: only query the counterparty of the current active order, and do not enumerate arbitrary UIDs or call this in a loop. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool.

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