get_user

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the Enterprise plan gating requirement and the specific 403 failure mode, which the agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone. It does not cover caching or authorization scope, but for a single-resource read that is a minor omission.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, how to get the required id, and the Enterprise gating constraint front-loaded before the routing advice. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description covers gating, error behavior, and sibling routing. Slightly short of perfect because it does not clarify whether 'profile' includes workspace/role metadata scoping, but nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage ('The user ID to retrieve'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only adds 'by id' and indirect guidance to obtain the id via list_all_users, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one accepted user by id') plus the scope qualifier 'accepted' and the returned fields (profile, role, timestamps). This distinguishes it clearly from list_all_users and get_user_invite among the many user-related siblings.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and the condition that selects them: list_all_users when you only have a name or email, get_user_invite for pending invitations. The 'accepted user' wording also implies the exclusion of pending invites from this tool.

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