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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions, missing-user behavior, or response scope — so it earns little credit beyond the GET path.

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 terse fragments with no filler and the key qualifier ('one user', 'by id') front-loaded. It is telegraphic rather than well-formed prose, which slightly limits readability but wastes nothing.

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 and a fully documented schema, the essentials are present. With no output schema, however, an agent gets no hint about what a user record contains or what happens for an unknown id.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (numeric, positive). 'By id' merely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies with no added format or constraint detail.

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+resource (retrieve a single user) and constrains it to lookup by id, which implicitly distinguishes it from kisi_list_users. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus kisi_list_users or kisi_get_current_user. The 'by id' phrasing implies you need a known numeric id, but that condition is left for the agent to infer rather than being stated as guidance.

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