get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields, which is useful, but it does not mention potential behavior for missing users, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation. Some behavioral context is provided, but key edge-case behavior is absent.

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 two sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives enough context about what the tool returns and the target resource. It is slightly incomplete by not addressing error cases or constraints, but the simplicity of the tool makes this acceptable territory for a 4 rather than a 5.

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 coverage is 100% (username described as 'The HN username'), so the schema already fully explains the parameter. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, fitting the baseline score of 3.

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 action (get a user profile) and the resource (Hacker News user by username). It also lists the key return data (karma, account age, about text, submission count), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_user_submissions that focuses on submissions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_user_submissions or search, and there are no usage context hints beyond the basic purpose.

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