get_user_info

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not carrying the full safety burden. It adds useful context that the record returned is the caller's own ("authenticated API client"), which explains why the tool takes no parameters, but it offers nothing about failure modes or errors.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The "Returns: The user record as JSON" line is mildly redundant given that a full output schema is provided, but it costs little.

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, parameterless read tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, so the description needn't explain fields. What remains is minor: no guidance on auth failure behavior or on how this differs from check_auth_status.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly reinforces that resolution is implicit via the authenticated client.

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 the Nettskjema user record") and scopes it to the authenticated API client, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby sibling check_auth_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this call.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase "for the authenticated API client" implicitly conveys that no user identifier is needed, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling routing are given.

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