fomo_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a user is fetched by id; it does not mention read-only behavior, authentication requirements, error behavior, or what is returned. The word 'Get' implies a read, but that is minimal.

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 efficient sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource and conveys the essential lookup parameter clearly.

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 single-parameter fetch, the description provides enough to know what resource is being retrieved and by what key. However, there is no output schema, no annotation, and no guidance on response shape, error cases, or when to choose a sibling tool, so completeness is only 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?

The schema has one required string parameter named 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description repeats that the user is found 'by id' but adds no additional meaning about the id format, origin, or constraints beyond what the schema already shows.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a fomo.family user'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by id'), which implies differentiation from the sibling fomo_get_user_by_handle. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as fomo_get_user_by_handle or fomo_search_users. There is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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