get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the list of fields returned and the use case, but no additional behavioral traits such as error handling or rate limits. Given the annotations, this is sufficient but not rich.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence specifies the action and result, the second gives the primary use case. No unnecessary words.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose, the data returned, and the typical use case. It does not need to explain return structure because the fields are listed. The annotations further clarify safety. Overall, it is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (userId: 'Gong user ID (numeric string up to 20 digits)'). The description does not add format or constraints beyond the schema, though it does provide context that the ID comes from call data. This context is minor, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a specific user profile and lists the included fields (name, email, title, phone, settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users and search_users by specifying the use case of resolving a specific user ID from call data.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use to resolve user IDs returned from call data.' This tells the agent when to use this tool, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention any other tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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