get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Return general info'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the data is real-time vs cached. For a user info tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and return values. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides concrete examples. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by front-loading the most critical information.

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 zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns. However, for a user info tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication requirements or data freshness. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return format, but behavioral context is incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A perfect 5 would require the description to explicitly state 'no parameters required' or similar, but 4 is appropriate given the empty parameter set.

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: 'Return general info about the Context by Fulcra user' with specific examples of what's returned ('user references such as time zone, calendar ids, and other metadata'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this user info tool from sibling tools that return location, metrics, sleep, or workout data, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools that return different types of user data. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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