slack_user_info

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds genuinely new operational context: which OAuth scopes are required, and specifically that the email field needs an extra scope. That scope-dependency is exactly the kind of thing an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations, though it says nothing about error behavior on missing scopes.

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, the returned-fields summary front-loaded and the permission caveat second. Efficient, with no filler; the only weakness is that the scope note is terse enough to be slightly cryptic about what happens without the email scope.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully enumerates the main fields anyway. However, with 0% schema description coverage on two required parameters, the definition leaves a material gap about how to supply user_id and workspace.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, but it mentions neither user_id nor workspace. An agent gets no hint about user ID format (U-prefixed vs name) or what 'workspace' identifies — a real gap for a 2-required-param tool.

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 resource (a user's profile fields) and names the underlying API (users.info), so an agent knows this is a profile lookup. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling slack_find_user, which is the most likely point of confusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives a prerequisite (users:read and users:read.email) but never says when to use this versus slack_find_user or other user-related siblings. Usage is implied by the field list rather than stated.

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