get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what kind of information is returned, or if there are any constraints on which users can be queried. 'Get information' implies a read operation but provides no behavioral context beyond that basic inference.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal but complete statement of function.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about users, whether there are limitations on which users can be queried, or what format the response takes. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The description doesn't mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage with a single well-documented 'username' parameter. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema.

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 information') and target resource ('about a Reddit user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_comments' or 'get_user_posts' - all three retrieve user-related data but this one is more general. The description is specific enough to understand what it does but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_user_comments', 'get_user_posts', and 'get_subreddit_info' available, there's no indication whether this tool provides comprehensive user profile data, basic metadata, or something else. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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