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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description's only additional signal is the '/api/v2/admin/...' path, which weakly hints at elevated admin permissions, but it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior on a missing id, or rate limits. Minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 very short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence (raw endpoint path) adds marginal value for an agent, but the brevity is not a defect.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not indicate what the response contains (user fields, permissions visibility) or what happens when the id does not exist. An agent can call it correctly, but the result contract is left to inference.

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% (user_id is documented with type constraints), so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description's 'by id' restates rather than extends it — no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance is added. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource (get one user) and constrains it by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling uservoice_list_users without the agent needing to open a schema. It is clear but does not name the alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One user by id' suggests this is the single-record lookup versus the list variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.

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