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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it manages the useful disclosure that only the 'profil public' is returned rather than private fields. It stops there, saying nothing about auth requirements, behavior when both or neither identifier is supplied, or error handling for missing users.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every element (verb, resource, both lookup keys) earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin for a tool with two optional identifiers. It neither documents the returned profile shape nor resolves which parameter wins, so an agent still has to guess on core invocation decisions.

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 description coverage is 0% and both parameters are nullable with no required marker, so the schema gives the agent nothing. The description names the two lookup keys ('par id ou par username') but adds no format, precedence, or behavior when both/neither are passed, leaving the critical ambiguity unresolved.

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 (Récupère) and resource (profil public d'un utilisateur) with both lookup keys named, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mcp_search_users or mcp_update_user, but the read/retrieve framing 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative mcp_search_users when the id/username is unknown. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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