lpm_user_info

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

The description mentions the authentication requirement and implies read-only behavior via 'Get information'. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or provide additional behavioral context such as rate limits or caching. Given no annotations, the description partially fills the transparency gap.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose with specific details, and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys essential information.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the function, lists the returned information categories, and notes the authentication requirement. No further detail is necessary given the tool's low complexity.

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?

There are no parameters; the input schema is empty and coverage is 100%. Per calibration guidelines, with 0 parameters the baseline score is 4. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 it retrieves authenticated user information and enumerates specific data categories (organizations, plan tier, pool access, usage limits). The tool name 'lpm_user_info' further reinforces its distinct purpose, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites beyond authentication. For an agent facing multiple sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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