Get User Mayorships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only claims a read ('Get') and a temporal scope ('current'). It says nothing about auth requirements, privacy of the data, pagination, or result limits, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical earning its place by defining a non-obvious term. No waste.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema handling return values, the description covers the essential purpose. The main gap is the absence of any usage context, but the core call information is sufficient.

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% for the single 'username' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (e.g., username format, exact-match behavior), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's current mayorships'), with a parenthetical defining the domain concept (venues where they're the mayor). It's clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_user_venue_history or get_user_checkins.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling read tools (get_user_checkins, get_user_details, etc.). Usage is only inferable from the name.

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