get_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that party stats are 'baked into every response,' implying the response always includes those stats regardless of field selection. This is a non-obvious behavior not captured in annotations or 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then a clear alternative. Every sentence contributes: the first defines the tool's scope, the second provides sibling differentiation. No filler or redundancy.

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 2 parameters, complete schema coverage, an existing output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers everything needed: what it fetches, what fields are returned, and when to use a more specific alternative. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% for both parameters (user_ids and fields), providing dot-path field details and array semantics. The description adds value by clarifying that party stats are always included even if fields are specified, which is not explicitly stated in the schema. This enhances the meaning of the 'fields' parameter.

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 'Fetch Partiful user profiles by their IDs' with specific verb and resource. It lists return fields (name, display name, username, profile image) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_users_party_stats by noting the party stats are included and when to use the alternative.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use get_users_party_stats instead if you only need attended/hosted event counts, not full profile info.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and names the alternative.

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