speedrun_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 safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on lookup resolution order between ID and username, rate limits, or whether the response includes runs/personal bests. It essentially restates structured information.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is not padded or ambiguous, though it is also so short that it leaves value on the table.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read, so low verbosity is appropriate, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema, the description could usefully state what a profile response contains (levels, region, twitch, etc.) or whether lookup is case-sensitive.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description ("User ID or username") matches the prose exactly, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the documentation work.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a Speedrun.com user profile") and specifies the accepted key forms (ID or username). It does not explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, but the speedrun_* family is cleanly partitioned by entity (games, leaderboards, runs), so confusion risk is low.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus speedrun_search_games or speedrun_get_game, nor any mention of prerequisites or failure conditions (e.g. what happens when a username doesn't exist). Usage is only implied by the name.

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