tapatalk_get_user_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds what fields are returned, but does not discuss behavior like parameter precedence, error cases, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations present, the description provides some added context but lacks depth.

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 a single, clearly structured sentence that lists key return fields without fluff. Every word contributes value.

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 read-only user info lookup, the description covers the essential return fields. No output schema exists, but the listed fields are sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. The tool is low complexity and the annotations plus schema provide adequate context.

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%, with both user_id and username documented. The description merely restates that either can be provided, adding no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and target ('user's profile information'), and enumerates specific data fields (post count, registration date, last activity, online status, avatar). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on forums, topics, or searches.

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 implies the use case—retrieving user profile data—and the sibling list confirms this is the only tool for that purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tool recommendations, so it stops short of a full 5.

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