get_user_profile_basic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema: the tool returns 'essential user metadata in a lightweight format' and explicitly states that it does not include 'full workbook history.' This informs the agent about the response shape and the absence of heavier data, though it could go further by listing exact fields or noting behavior for nonexistent users.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear statement of what the tool does, immediately clarifies the difference from a sibling tool, and ends with practical use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what data the 'basic profile information' includes. It says 'essential user metadata' and 'lightweight format,' but does not enumerate the fields or mention behavior for invalid usernames. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but leaves gaps about exact return contents and error handling.

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 description does not mention the username parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema itself provides a reasonable description of the parameter, the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage. For a single parameter, some mention of the expected input (e.g., a Tableau Public username) and any constraints would have raised the score.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('basic profile information for a Tableau Public user'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_user_profile by explicitly noting it is a 'simpler alternative' that omits 'full workbook history,' making the specific scope clear.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This is a simpler alternative to get_user_profile when you only need core profile details without the full workbook history.' It also mentions concrete use cases ('quick profile lookups and user validation'), giving the agent a clear decision rule for when to select this tool over its siblings.

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