get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuine negative-space information by stating the data comes from the public profile page and that follower/following counts are unavailable. It does not mention behavior for private, suspended, or nonexistent accounts, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, zero filler. The enumeration of returned fields (display name, bio, avatar, banner) is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing it a point.

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?

For a single-parameter read with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and data limitations adequately. It stops short of covering failure modes (nonexistent or protected accounts), which would matter for a public-data lookup.

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 the username parameter already documents the 'without @' convention, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read public profile metadata for an X account') and immediately narrows scope to the public profile page. An agent can distinguish this from the tweet-oriented siblings (get_tweets, get_user_tweets) without inspecting schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement (public profile only), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_user_tweets or search_tweets, and no prerequisites or error conditions are named.

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