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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing which user attributes come back, which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about error behavior for invalid or unknown ids.

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 compact fragment with the scope front-loaded and the returned fields following, with no wasted words. It reads as a label rather than a sentence, which slightly weakens readability but not economy.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly sufficient: identity, scope, and returned fields are all stated. Only failure modes and pagination/format expectations, which are minor here, are absent.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents the sole user_id parameter including its source (gocanvas_list_users). The description adds no additional semantics about the id beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource and scope precisely ('One user by id') and enumerates the fields returned (name, login, contact data, department, role), which lets an agent distinguish it from gocanvas_list_users and gocanvas_get_me. The verb is implicit in the fragment rather than stated, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and names no alternatives, despite close siblings like gocanvas_list_users and gocanvas_get_me. The only routing hint ('from gocanvas_list_users') lives in the schema, not the description.

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