users_get_user_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The GET prefix weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about auth requirements, not-found behavior, or response shape for a user-lookup endpoint.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but it is a raw OpenAPI dump where "Tags: Users Controller" and the bare path add little for an agent. Two of the three lines are mechanical artifacts rather than useful 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the definition is too thin for a lookup tool. An agent gets no information about what a successful response contains or how a missing user is signaled.

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 0% for the single userId parameter, and the description only echoes it as a path placeholder. It adds no meaning about the numeric type, the exclusiveMinimum: 0 constraint, or what identifier space the ID belongs to.

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?

"Get user by ID" states a verb and resource and the path shows the {userId} template, but it is essentially the tool name restated (users_get_user_by_id). It does not clarify how the numeric ID differs from the short_uuid/username lookups that exist as siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as users_get_user_by_short_uuid, users_get_user_by_username, or users_resolve_user. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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