users_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own, such as error behavior when the ID does not exist or whether the response is a full user object; it simply restates the operation.

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?

Three words, fully front-loaded, with zero filler. It errs toward under-specification rather than verbosity, which keeps it efficient even if not especially informative.

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 trivial single-parameter read tool with annotations covering its safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless leaves a real ambiguity unresolved: which of the several user-lookup siblings an agent should pick for a given identifier.

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 carries the burden for the single parameter. 'By ID' does tie the lookup to the numeric userId and implicitly contrasts with the username/UUID variants, but it adds no detail on format or whether the ID is internal versus external.

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 names a specific verb (Get) and resource (user) plus the lookup key (ID), so the operation itself is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like users_get_by_username, users_get_by_short_uuid, or users_resolve, which all fetch a single user by a different identifier, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of the alternative lookup tools (by username, short UUID, resolve). The only guidance is implied by the name itself, so the description contributes nothing here.

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