get_admin_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it calls a GET endpoint, which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, error behaviors, or rate limits. It lacks details about what happens on success or failure, and does not clarify whether the tool is read-only beyond the HTTP method.

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 redundancy. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the HTTP call and parameter placement guidance. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 has an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description leaves gaps: it does not explain the body parameter, does not clarify that path_params likely requires a userId even though schema marks it optional, and does not mention any prerequisites or authentication. For a simple GET operation, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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. It partially does by explaining that path_params holds route IDs and query holds filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values. However, it does not explain the body parameter at all, and the guidance for path_params is vague ('route IDs' without specifying which ID). This adds some meaning but is incomplete for a tool with three parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get administrator user details' and specifies the underlying HTTP call. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_admin_users or get_account. The name and description align well, so the purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling distinction.

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: fetch a single admin user's details. It provides guidance on where to put parameters ('Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query'), but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_admin_users or get_account. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection logic.

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