Get user

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world nature, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the response carries supporter status and API rate limits — a genuinely useful signal since the agent can use this call to inspect its quota. It also discloses the two-mode behavior (self vs. public profile). It stops short of describing error behavior for nonexistent users or privacy scoping.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the primary outcome (profile, supporter status, rate limits) is front-loaded before the secondary mode. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the key returned fields and both access modes. The remaining gap is minor — no mention of what happens when the requested username does not exist.

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 single parameter already carries 'Omit for your own profile', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description corroborates the self-vs-other distinction but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') plus the resource ('user') and enumerates what is returned: profile, supporter status, API rate limits, or another user's public profile. The two access modes (self vs. other) are stated, which separates it from get_user_stats and get_user_lists, though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it should call this for profile data and can infer from the schema that omitting username yields the caller's own profile. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_user_stats or get_user_lists, and no stated preconditions or failure cases.

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