Get user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what 'full details' includes, whether it spans org scope only, or what happens when the member is absent or not visible to the caller.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the scope is front-loaded. However, the brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline for a tool with six parameters and a large ambiguous sibling set.

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?

With no output schema, the description would need to convey what 'full details' returns, and it does not. Combined with six undocumented parameters and no disambiguation from the many get_* user/member tools, an agent lacks enough to call this confidently.

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% across six parameters, and the description only vaguely implies member_id and org_id via 'one member's'. The four optional passthrough parameters (data, form, params, json_body) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the text does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It states a verb (get) and a resource (one member's full details), so the basic operation is legible. But the tool name says 'user' while the description says 'member', and siblings such as get_members, get_user_json, get_user_by_mail_json and get_org_user_mini_details are not differentiated, leaving real ambiguity about which retrieval this is.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set of adjacent user/member lookups. The agent must infer selection purely from the name.

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