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. It only states the action (get) and the identifier, but discloses no behavioral traits such as error responses when the user is not found, whether the email lookup is case-insensitive, or the structure of the returned user object. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose and parameter scope efficiently.

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 one-parameter lookup, the description covers the core action and parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return format, error behavior, and any caveats. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps in context.

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 input schema already provides full coverage (100%) with a description for the only parameter 'idOrEmail' ('User ID or email address'). The tool description adds only a slight redundancy ('by ID or email'), adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 function: getting a user by ID or email. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users, which lists users. No ambiguity.

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: use when you have a user's ID or email. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_users or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for listing all users, use list_users'). The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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