get_user_by_name

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide. It only names the output payload ('profile and karma') and does not mention failure modes, field scope, rate limits, or whether the user must exist. The readOnlyHint annotation is present, which covers safety, but no additional behavior is disclosed.

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 four words and contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is maximally concise while still communicating the core returned data.

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-only lookup tool, the description combined with the schema and annotation is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that the exact fields inside 'profile' are unspecified, but this is not critical for selecting and calling the tool.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the 'name' parameter including the 'no u/ prefix' instruction. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'User profile and karma' clearly identifies the resource being retrieved, even though it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase like 'Gets...'. It also helps distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as get_user_by_name_comments and get_user_by_name_status by indicating that this returns the core profile and karma data.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over get_user_by_name_status or get_user_by_name_comments, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative conditions.

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