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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what payload comes back (contact data, status, locations, working areas, tags, profile fields) and hints at the underlying GET endpoint, but says nothing about error behavior for missing ids or account scoping.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the key identification and the returned fields. The trailing 'GET /users?id=.' fragment is a slightly noisy artifact but does not impede comprehension.

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 with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the categories of data returned, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Papershift user id.'), so the description adds essentially nothing beyond confirming the lookup is keyed on the id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 ('One employee by id') and enumerates the profile facets returned (contact data, status, locations, working areas, tags, profile fields), which clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like papershift_list_users. It stops short of naming the list counterpart explicitly, but a single 'by id' lookup 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?

The phrase 'by id' implies this is the single-record lookup versus the list endpoint, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over papershift_list_users or what happens if the id is unknown. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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