Get User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned (name, trust level, join date, bio, profile link) and clarifying the username format requirement ('without @ symbol'), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and output expectations.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and mechanism, the second specifies the return values. Every element serves a purpose - no redundant information, no fluff, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 operation with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context by specifying the return fields. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the response structure (e.g., whether fields might be null, format of dates). The description is mostly complete but has minor gaps in output specification.

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 the parameter fully documented in the schema ('The Discourse username to look up (without @ symbol, e.g., 'codinghorror')'). The description mentions 'by username' but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With complete schema coverage, 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 specific action ('Get information about a Discourse user by username') and resource ('Discourse user'), distinguishing it from siblings like discourse_list_user_posts or discourse_list_user_chat_channels which list user content rather than retrieve user profile information. It specifies the exact lookup mechanism (by username) rather than a generic 'get user' operation.

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 usage context by specifying 'by username' and listing the returned fields, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like discourse_search (which could find users) or discourse_list_user_posts (which focuses on content). There's no guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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