get_user_public_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get public data' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'public' entails (e.g., data availability based on user settings). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get public data of a user'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient. However, it could be more structured by briefly hinting at the tool's scope or usage, but as-is, it's appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 the complexity of user data retrieval and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'public data' includes, how it differs from other user-related tools, or what the return values might be (e.g., JSON structure, error cases). This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'username' and 'withTrophies'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'username' or what 'trophies' entail. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 'Get public data of a user' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('public data of a user'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's vague about what 'public data' specifically includes (e.g., profile, ratings, activity) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_activity', which may overlap in scope.

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 such as 'get_user_profile' and 'get_user_activity', there's no indication of how this tool differs (e.g., broader vs. specific data, public vs. private access). This lack of context makes it unclear when an agent should choose this tool over others.

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