get-user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return payload but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a gap for a get operation.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, listing contents concisely. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required param, no output schema), the description adequately lists the expected return fields. However, it could include more context about error cases or data freshness, and since there is no output schema, the description compensates reasonably.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'id' described as 'Specialist user ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints or how to obtain the ID.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specialist profile', listing specific contents (bio, skills, portfolio, hourly rate, ratings, available time slots). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get-pricing or search-specialists.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (when you need detailed info on a specialist by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or mention alternatives like search-specialists for searching or get-pricing for pricing only.

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