get_user_summary

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that authentication is optional and provides more data when authenticated, and that data is retrieved in a single call. However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or what happens to existing data. Additional behavioral details are missing.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key behavior (auth sensitivity). No redundant or verbose language.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain parameter behavior, return shape, or potential errors. The agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the tool includes 'profile, recent posts, and engagement statistics', which loosely corresponds to boolean parameters but does not explain them directly. No explicit mapping to parameter names or values is provided.

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 retrieves comprehensive user information including profile, recent posts, and engagement statistics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_profile by emphasizing the combined view in a single call, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions authentication behavior, which is a condition, not a usage context. Siblings like get_user_profile or analyze_engagement could achieve similar results, but no comparative advice is given.

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