users_get_config

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

The verb 'Get' and the mention of the suspended flag imply a read-only status inspection with no side effects, which is the main behavioral trait of this tool. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose authentication expectations, whether the username must be a regular user vs reseller, or how absent/missing configs are represented.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then the argument. Every line carries necessary information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read operation with an output schema, the essential invocation details are mostly present. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps about authorization and how this config call relates to sibling config/usage tools.

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 description adds a one-line meaning for the sole parameter ('username: Account name'), which is helpful because the schema has zero description coverage. But it offers no format, ownership, or scope detail, so it only barely clears the minimum bar.

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 operation and resource: getting user.conf-style configuration, and enumerates the config areas (limits, domains, suspended flag). This clearly distinguishes it from usage or search tools, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over related tools such as resellers_get_config or users_get_usage, and no exclusions or context about the required calling context (e.g., admin vs reseller). The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.

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