Get a forum user

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by declaring the privacy scope ('private account data such as balances or email is never returned') and by enumerating the returned fields in the absence of an output schema.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The capability is front-loaded and the privacy caveat follows immediately as the only secondary point.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned profile fields and notes what is excluded, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior on an invalid or unknown user_id, so it is not quite complete enough for a 5.

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 single user_id parameter fully documented including the 'me' special value, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the public profile of a LOLZTEAM user') and enumerates the returned fields, giving an agent a precise picture of the operation. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from lookup-oriented siblings such as forum_find_users or forum_list_user_content, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer it fetches a single user's profile, but nothing tells it to prefer forum_find_users for discovery or how this differs from forum_list_user_content, leaving routing to inference.

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