get_user_by_name_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict that. The phrase 'shadowban check' adds some useful semantic context about what kind of read this is, but the description does not disclose details like return format, rate limits, or how status is determined.

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 and front-loaded: 'Account status / shadowban check' conveys the core purpose in a few words with no filler or redundancy. For such a simple tool, this is appropriately sized.

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 only one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the short description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It clearly signals the output domain (status/shadowban) even though it does not specify the exact response structure.

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 fully documents the only parameter 'name' with a clear format warning ('no u/ prefix'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so it remains at baseline.

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 identifies the tool's function as checking account status or shadowban status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_by_name and get_user_by_name_comments. The wording uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('account status'). It could be slightly more explicit about what statuses are returned, but it is not vague or tautological.

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 purpose statement implies this tool should be used when account status or shadowban information is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over get_user_by_name or other user-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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