get_user_presence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (availability values such as Available, Busy, DoNotDisturb, Away, Offline and activity values such as InACall, InAMeeting, Presenting), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether presence is live or cached, or latency/rate characteristics of polling awareness state.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, return values second, ID sourcing last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-required-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, result shape, and ID provenance, which is close to sufficient. The residual gap is the absence of any note about permissions or freshness of the presence data, which an agent might need for this class of call.

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 user_id is completely undocumented in the input schema, and the description must compensate. It partially does by naming the three sibling tools that yield a valid user_id, which is real semantic guidance beyond the schema, though it never describes the expected identifier format or whether other ID forms are accepted.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the presence/availability status of a user') and enumerates the two returned dimensions (availability and activity), so the agent knows this is a presence lookup rather than a profile lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_user, which also takes a user_id, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite — where to obtain user_id (list_team_members, list_chat_members, get_user) — which is actionable routing guidance. It never states when to prefer this tool over get_user or any alternative, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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