get_user_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context: 'Read-only; works in anonymous mode' and 'Returns profile stats only', which reinforces the read-only nature and clarifies scope. No contradiction. Slight deduction because it doesn't mention rate limits or potential errors, but the annotation coverage is good.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: what it returns, read-only nature, sibling tool differentiation, and limitation. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is complete. It covers purpose, scope, limitations, and alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description lists the return contents (karma, account age, status flags, activity analysis) sufficiently. The tool is simple enough that this is fully adequate.

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% and the single parameter 'username' is well-described with format example ('spez', not 'u/spez'). The description adds context about what the parameter represents (target user) and what it does not include (private fields). Baseline 3 for high coverage, +1 for the explicit format guidance.

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 purpose: 'Get a public profile for any Reddit user' with specific data points (karma, account age, status flags, activity analysis). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_user_posts/get_user_comments for content and get_me for authenticated account.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'use get_user_posts / get_user_comments for their actual content' and 'Use get_me instead for your own authenticated account'. Also clarifies the limitation: 'do NOT expect private fields here'.

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