hires_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the basic 'get by ID' by noting the tenant scope constraint and the practical usage of `default_mail_account_id` as `from_account_id`. It does not elaborate on error cases or permissions, but the extra details provide meaningful transparency.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence promptly states the purpose, and the second provides actionable additional guidance. Every word contributes meaning, making it efficiently front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one input parameter and no output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It covers the action, usage scenario, tenant scoping, and a useful note about the response field. It could mention the return type or behavior when not found, but for a simple getter, the description is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with a description for the sole parameter `id` ('User ID'). The tool description does not add any further meaning to the input parameter itself. It does mention a field from the response (`default_mail_account_id`), which relates to output rather than input, so parameter semantics remain at the baseline.

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 clearly states the action: 'Get a single user by ID' within tenant scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hires_get_candidate by specifying 'user' and from list tools like hires_list_users by emphasizing 'single user by ID'. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Use for identity resolution in automation flows.' This tells the agent when to apply it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., when to use list_users instead), so it stops short of a full 5.

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