get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the detail that the information is 'detailed,' suggesting comprehensive data return, but lacks disclosure on error behavior (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid), authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence (11 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler content.

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?

Given this is a simple single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It appropriately clarifies the domain context ('shop') and role equivalence ('user or technician') without over-specifying.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully described as 'The user/technician ID'. The description references the ID ('by their ID'), confirming the parameter's purpose, but does not add syntax constraints, format examples, or validation rules beyond the schema definition.

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 detailed information), resource (shop user or technician), and scope (single entity by ID). The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling 'list_users', though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 implies an ID is required ('by their ID'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this specific retrieval tool versus 'list_users' or 'search_parts'. It states the mechanism but not the selection criteria.

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