xflux_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only, non-posting nature of the operation, which is the most important safety signal, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, suspended/protected-account behavior, or error cases.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose first and the usage/negative constraint second. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema; the description covers what it does, when to use it, which fields come back, and that it is read-only. That is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the single parameter with format guidance ('Handle without @'). The description's 'by @username' adds no syntax detail and is slightly less precise than 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('X/Twitter profile lookup') and enumerates the fields returned (bio, follower counts, verified status). It implicitly separates itself from the tweet-oriented siblings, but never names them, so an agent must infer that this is not the tool for tweets.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when the user asks for a public Twitter/X user profile...') plus a negative bound ('not for posting'). It does not, however, route to the obvious alternative (xflux_get_user_tweets) for a user's posts, leaving that inference to the agent.

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