get_user_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation and lists the data fields returned, but it does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements beyond 'logged-in', or whether the data is real-time. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 13 words, front-loading the primary action and resource. Every word adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and enumerates the key returned fields. It does not explain the full response structure, but the listed inclusions offer sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'details of the logged-in user' with explicit mention of subscription plan, credit balance, and AI token count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_connected_accounts and list_posts.

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 implies this tool is for accessing current user information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tool comparison or when/when-not guidance is given.

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