get_a2_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It is a GET request implying read-only, but this is not explicitly stated. No information is given about authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned beyond a vague 'user object'. The description adds no value beyond the HTTP method.

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 very short, but it includes redundant text ('User' and 'Get user object'). The structure with the path in brackets is somewhat informative, but the conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. It could be more efficient with a single clear sentence.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what fields or structure the returned user object has, nor does it provide any context about pagination, filters, or common usage patterns. For a simple tool, this minimalism is inadequate.

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 only parameter 'username' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not clarify its meaning. It is unclear whether 'username' refers to an Instagram username, a user ID, or something else. The description adds no semantic value.

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 states 'Get user object' with the HTTP method and path, clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling tools like get_v1_user_by_username or get_v2_user_by_username, making it unclear which user object is retrieved (e.g., by username, ID, or other criteria).

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 on when to use this tool versus the numerous similar user retrieval tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without direction.

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