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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any behavior such as return format, error handling (e.g., if the username is not found), or potential side effects. No extra context is added beyond the action itself.

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, short sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word is necessary, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one-parameter getter, this is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what is returned, but it only says 'user information'. It also lacks usage context relative to sibling tools. However, the tool's simplicity mitigates these shortcomings.

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 description repeats the schema's 'username' parameter without adding extra detail about format, constraints, or case sensitivity. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional 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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'user information' and specifies the lookup criterion 'by username'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get-bets and get-market, and implies an exact lookup compared to search-users. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 alternatives such as search-users. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer that this is for exact username lookups, but that is not explicitly stated.

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