token_bowl_chat_admin_get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the admin auth requirement, that sensitive fields (email, API key) are returned, and the two failure modes (NotFoundError, AuthenticationError). It omits rate limits or return-shape edge cases, but covers the safety-critical behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the admin constraint and purpose, then structured Args/Returns/Raises sections. The Returns enumeration of fields is genuinely useful and not present in the schema, so it earns its space; slightly verbose but well-organized.

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 read tool with no annotations and an existing output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, auth requirement, returned fields, and error cases. Only minor gaps (no pagination/rate context, no explicit alternative routing) remain.

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 and does: it documents the sole parameter as 'the username of the user to retrieve', clarifying it targets the user to fetch. This is meaningful beyond the bare schema, though no format/validation constraints are given.

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 ('Get') and resource ('complete profile details for a specific user'), and the [ADMIN ONLY] prefix plus 'for any user' cleanly separates it from siblings like admin_get_all_users (list) and get_user_profile (self). An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear context ('retrieve full account information for any user') and states the prerequisite (admin privileges), which is the key gating condition. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g., get_my_profile for one's own data), so it lacks true when-not guidance.

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