get_full_user

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description only needs to add scope; it does so by listing bio, common chats, premium, etc. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the returned information without contradicting the annotations.

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 tightly packed lines with a clear header and an Args section. Every word adds value; no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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?

A one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, strong annotations, and a description that specifies input semantics and result categories. No missing information is needed for correct selection/invocation.

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 provides only types (integer/string/null) with zero descriptions. The description compensates fully: 'user: id/@username; None = я сам' explains the accepted formats and the special null meaning, so no ambiguity remains.

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?

Description states 'Расширенная инфа о пользователе (bio, общие чаты, premium, etc)'—a specific resource (user) with concrete content categories. It differentiates from sibling getters like get_me by allowing any user id/username and covering full profile details.

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 Args line clarifies when to pass a user vs None ('None = я сам'), which is useful operational context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_me or get_common_chats, nor when not to use it.

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