User Information

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint; the description restates read-only/idempotent plus adds auth requirement (wallet signature identity) and nullability semantics for info/internalAccount, which is useful. But the nullability and masking details are return-value detail arguably already carried by the output schema, and no rate limits or failure modes are described.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then return shape, then prerequisites, then alternatives – a sensible order. It is dense but slightly over-detailed on return-value internals that the output schema already covers.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description needn't explain returns; it covers prerequisites and alternatives. The only miss is any note on auth failure behavior, which is minor.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads the authenticated user's profile and linked internal account. It names the fields returned and contrasts directly with tronsave_get_user_auto_setting and tronsave_get_user_permissions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes to two alternatives with the condition (when the full profile is unnecessary), plus a prerequisite (wallet signature identity). This is genuine when-to-use / when-not guidance.

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