razz-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing about error handling (e.g., behavior when the ID is not found), visibility restrictions (public vs. private profiles), rate limits, or the structure of the returned profile data.

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, efficiently worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action, though its extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like behavioral transparency.

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?

Given the low complexity (single required string parameter) and lack of output schema, the description minimally suffices to invoke the tool, but it fails to compensate for the missing annotations and output schema by describing the profile structure or auth requirements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'userId' parameter already documented as 'Account ID to look up'. The description merely echoes this intent with 'by account ID' without adding syntax constraints, example formats, or validation rules, meriting the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), resource ('user's profile'), and lookup method ('by account ID'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'razz_whoami' (likely for the current user) or 'razz_search_users' (likely for fuzzy search), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the parameter name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (like authentication requirements) or specify that this is for direct ID lookups as opposed to searching by username or retrieving the authenticated user's own profile via 'razz_whoami'.

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