Get User Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds only 'Retrieve details' which is redundant. It does not disclose specifics about the returned data (e.g., karma, about) or any constraints like rate limits or error handling.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, though it could be enriched without sacrificing brevity.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what fields are returned. It does not mention common user details (e.g., karma, creation date). The schema covers only id and response_format, leaving ambiguity about the response.

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 has 50% description coverage, with 'id' described in schema. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters like response_format. Baseline 3 is not justified because coverage is low and description fails to compensate.

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 details for a Hacker News user profile by username. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of sibling tools for stories, items, etc., distinguishes it effectively.

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 implies usage when user details are needed, and the sibling tool names clearly differentiate this from story/item tools. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are provided.

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