user_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'GET' is conveyed; nothing is said about auth/permission requirements, the meaning of the 'user_id' acting-on-behalf semantics, pagination behavior of limit/offset, or what the response contains.

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 text is short and front-loads the endpoint, but two of the four lines (tag and spec) are pure metadata that consume space without helping an agent act. It is terse rather than information-dense.

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 three parameters including a subtle 'act on behalf of' flag, the description should at minimum clarify which user is retrieved and what the caller needs to supply. It omits all of this, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, so limit, offset, and user_id (including 'admin acts on behalf of this user') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or interpretation beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'GET /user' and the Russian gloss 'Получение пользователя' (retrieving a user), which does convey a verb+resource. However, it gives no indication of scope (current user vs. arbitrary user vs. list) and does nothing to distinguish it from near-identical siblings such as admin_user_get, user_public_by_id_get, or user_service_get. The remaining lines ('Тег: Пользователи', 'Спека: user') are metadata, not purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent has no basis for choosing user_get over admin_user_get or user_public_by_id_get, nor any hint about required auth context.

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