get_users_by_id_yir_by_year

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the endpoint path; it does not describe pagination, rate limits, or any constraints. However, because annotations already provide the safety profile, the description doesn't contradict them, but it doesn't enrich them either.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but it's mostly a restatement of the endpoint. The parameter list is redundant with the schema. It could be more concise by dropping the restatement of the path and the vague parameter descriptions.

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 complexity of a year-in-review tool with an output schema, the description lacks details about what the review includes, any constraints (e.g., only for authenticated user?), and how 'extended' affects the response. The output schema exists but is not shown to the agent, so the description should provide more context about the return format.

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 is the only source for parameter meaning. It explains 'id' as user slug or 'me', but 'year' and 'extended' are only mentioned generically ('Path parameter', 'Extended information to include in the response') without providing expected values or formats. The 'extended' parameter is vague, and the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 tool is clearly 'Get year in review', and the path pattern indicates a specific resource (user's year-in-review for a given year). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'get_users_by_id_mir_by_year_by_month' (month in review) beyond the obvious path difference, and it does not explain what 'year in review' contains.

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 only says what tool does ('Get year in review') but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternative tools like 'get_users_by_id_mir_by_year_by_month' or when not to use this tool. An agent has to infer usage purely from the name.

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