Get a user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the token-owner lookup includes email, while username/userId lookups return only the public profile. This discloses an auth-scoped privacy distinction that is not visible in the schema or annotations.

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 core action and then the two invocation modes. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a simple optional-parameter getter. The output schema covers return values, the annotations cover safety, and the description explains both invocation forms, the auth-token context, and the email/privacy distinction. No critical information is missing.

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% and both parameters are well described. The description adds value by tying username/userId to the 'public profile' behavior and contrasting that with the no-argument case, which returns the token owner including email. This goes slightly beyond the schema's 'instead of the token owner' phrasing.

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 an Opengist user account') and distinguishes two modes: no arguments returns the token owner with email, while username/userId returns a public profile. This makes it unmistakably a user lookup tool and distinct from the gist-oriented 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?

No alternative user lookup tool exists among the siblings, but the description provides clear guidance on which invocation mode to use: omit arguments for the token owner, or provide username/userId for another public profile. It could be a 5 if it explicitly stated when not to use it, but the context is already strong.

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