run_vinted_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: a flat 5-point cost per successful run. It says nothing about rate limits, required auth, error behavior, or whether the profile lookup is cached, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contents, followed by the cost note. No filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the profile fields returned and the accepted identifier format, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The omission is that it never addresses the multi-domain parameter or any error/not-found behavior.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that 'user' accepts an ID or URL, matching the schema, but adds no new semantics and never explains the 'domain' enum's role in selecting the Vinted storefront.

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 ('Get a Vinted member profile') plus the identifier forms accepted, and enumerates the returned data (location, reputation, feedback/item counts, followers, verification, bundle discounts). It clearly scopes to the profile itself, though it never explicitly names the sibling sub-resource tools (run_vinted_users_items, run_vinted_users_feedbacks) to draw the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The field listing implies the profile-retrieval use case, but nothing tells the agent how this differs from run_vinted_users_items or run_vinted_users_feedbacks, which are the closest siblings.

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