get_user_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the default behavior of the user parameter, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements or potential errors, which for a read-only profile fetch is a minor 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?

The description is extremely concise—two lines with a clear subject-verb-object structure and a parameter definition. The purpose is stated first, and the argument is explained directly after. No wasted words 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description confirms the fields (playcount, registration date, country, subscriber) and the default parameter behavior. For a simple read operation with one optional parameter, nothing critical is missing. A small omission is the lack of mention of how the 'user' is specified (username vs. ID), but this is minor.

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 compensate. It does: 'user: Whose profile to read. Defaults to the authenticated account.' This clearly explains the parameter's meaning, its optional nature, and the default behavior. For a single parameter, this is sufficient.

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 tool fetches a user's profile and lists specific fields (playcount, registration date, country, subscriber). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_recent_tracks, which focus on other aspects. The verb 'Get' and resource 'user's profile' are unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_user_* tools. It only mentions the default behavior (defaults to authenticated account), but offers no explicit context or exclusions. For example, it doesn't state that other tools are for recent tracks or loved tracks.

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