aircall_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context about the return contents (numbers and availability), which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it doesn't discuss error handling, permissions, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations already provide.

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 that states the core purpose and key included data. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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-only tool with one parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main return elements (numbers and availability) despite lacking an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile. Slight vagueness in 'detailed information' prevents a perfect score, but overall it is adequate.

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% for the single user_id parameter with a clear description. The tool description adds little semantic meaning about the parameter itself, just reinforcing that it targets a 'specific user.' No additional parameter details are provided, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (get detailed information) on a specific resource (a particular user), and distinguishes itself from siblings like aircall_list_users (which lists users) and aircall_get_user_numbers (which only gets numbers) by specifying that it returns detailed info including both numbers and availability.

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 usage when you have a specific user_id and need comprehensive user details, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops at implied usage without naming sibling tools.

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