Get User Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retrieve' and the token-scoping phrase make clear this is a read that only resolves the token's own identity, which is meaningful. It does not cover failure behavior for invalid/expired tokens, permission scope, or what profile fields come back.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and its scoping are stated immediately. It could have used a short second clause about the token being optional/environment-derived, but nothing present is wasteful.

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 simple, single-parameter read tool this covers the core intent, but with no output schema the description should say what the profile contains or how failures surface. It is adequate rather than complete.

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 single parameter has full schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that the token is a JWT from login or derived from environment credentials. The description only reinforces that the token selects whose profile is returned, adding little beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('the Money Lover user profile'), and the phrase 'associated with the token' clarifies it returns the current authenticated user rather than an arbitrary user. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, though the resource is obviously distinct from wallets, categories, and transactions.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the call to make to identify who the token belongs to, typically after login. There are no explicit when/when-not statements, prerequisites, or named alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps this resource, so the inference burden is low.

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