get_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get detailed profile information') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed' entails. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe or effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, which aligns well with best practices for conciseness.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for safe agent operation, scoring at the baseline of viable but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a 'user_id' is needed. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details (e.g., format of user_id), so it scores slightly lower at 3.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed profile information for a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' or 'get_user_by_screen_name', which appear to serve similar user lookup functions, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' and 'get_user_by_screen_name' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs in context, prerequisites, 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.