get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: passing 'fields' returns only those fields and is 'cheaper' than the full payload. However, it does not mention error behavior, permissions, account_id semantics, or any other potential side effects. This is minimal but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently explains the optional fields parameter. Every clause adds value.

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 tool is a simple get-by-ID operation with an output schema present, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the core purpose and the main behavioral variation. Some missing parameter explanations and a lack of sibling differentiation slightly reduce completeness, but it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 must compensate for all parameters. It does explain 'fields' well: comma-separated list, returns just those, cheaper. However, it does not explain the required 'user_id' and 'account_id' parameters, which are only given as titles in the schema. The description fails to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a specific user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users (which lists many users) and other get_* tools (which target different resource types). The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 use this tool when you need details for a single user, as opposed to listing all users. It also gives practical guidance on when to use the 'fields' parameter (when only a few fields are needed). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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