get_rsuser_total

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the return value and an important inclusion detail (FunOrb/version accounts), but it does not clarify whether the count is real-time, cached, cumulative, or restricted to active accounts, nor the output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds a valuable inclusion qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool. The description covers the core purpose and a key edge case. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing the distinction from get_player_count or the response type, but for such a low-complexity tool, it is mostly sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required and the description avoids redundant parameter details.

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 'Returns' and the resource: the current amount of accounts created that can access RuneScape, including FunOrb or a particular version. This is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_player_count.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_player_count. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the usage context entirely implied.

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