find_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it 'Returns full user objects,' which is useful output context absent from annotations, but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior when multiple identifiers are supplied, or whether all identifiers are mutually exclusive. This is decent but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core purpose and the key behavioral note (returns full user objects) before the usage hint. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 description conveys the core idea and that full user objects are returned, which helps since there is no output schema. However, for a 6-parameter optional lookup, it omits critical constraints such as requiring at least one identifier and what happens if multiple identifiers are provided or none match, leaving gaps that could lead to incorrect invocations.

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 description simply lists the same parameter names that appear in the schema (id, username, shortUuid, telegramId, email, tag) without adding meaning such as expected formats, pseudonym handling, or whether identifiers can be combined. With schema description coverage at 67%, the description does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters (tag and shortUuid).

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 clear verb (Find) and resource (users) and enumerates all supported identifier types, making it obvious that it is a unified lookup rather than a single-field getter. The phrase 'instead of guessing which endpoint to call' hints at sibling tools but does not explicitly name them, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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 says 'Use this instead of guessing which endpoint to call,' which implies it should be used when the correct specific endpoint is unknown. However, it does not specify when to prefer the specific single-field getters (e.g., get_user_by_id) or any exclusions, leaving usage largely implied.

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