jan3_user_info

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects (auto-tops-up unused address pool under certain conditions, best-effort), conditions (requires prior login), and fields returned. However, the mutability of the tool is not explicitly stated (e.g., read-only vs. write).

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?

Five sentences front-loaded with purpose. Includes a critical handling instruction for ln_username and a behavioral note. Could be slightly trimmed, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers return fields (email, ln_username, fingerprint, feature flags) and side effects, but it does not explain error modes or the format of feature flags. Some ambiguity about 'carries the LN-address state'—whether that is part of the return or a separate context. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has 2 parameters: email and wallet_name. Description adds context for email (requires prior login) but does not mention wallet_name at all. With 50% schema coverage, the description marginally compensates, but the undocumented wallet_name reduces value.

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?

Clearly states it gets the AQUA account profile with specific fields (email, ln_username, fingerprint, feature flags). The verb 'Get' and resource 'AQUA account profile' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on sessions or login.

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?

Specifies a prerequisite ('Requires a prior JAN3 login for the email.') and explains the ln_username field handling, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like jan3_list_sessions or jan3_session_info. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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