Get Account User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the specific fields returned but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or data freshness. The added value is marginal beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence of 19 words. Every word adds value, and no information is redundant. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key output fields.

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?

For a simple read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It mentions specific return fields, but lacks detail on the output_format parameter and error handling. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description should compensate. It only implies user_id as a UUID but does not explain the output_format parameter or provide any parameter details. This is insufficient for a tool with two parameters.

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 tool gets an account-scoped user record by UUID, listing specific fields (status, RBAC role, verification, 2FA state). This verb-resource combination is distinct from siblings like 'get_user' which may not be account-scoped.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit. The description does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get_user' or 'list_users', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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