panelica_mysql_users_get_v1_mysql_users_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; the description adds the required scope (databases:read) and the exact HTTP endpoint. It does not describe edge cases like 404s, but for a simple GET-by-ID this is sfficient.

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?

Very compact and well-structured: summary, HTTP method/path, category, required scopes, and read-only flag each occupy their own line with no filler. Every line earns its place.

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 GET with full annotation coverage, the description contains all needed invocation context: HTTP method, path, required scope, and read-only safety. No output schema exists, and return-value details are not necessary for selecting or calling this tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'id' path parameter, so the schema carries the full parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed here.

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 action and resource ('Get MySQL user') along with the exact HTTP method and path, so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling list endpoint (panelica_mysql_users_get_v1_mysql_users), but the '/:id' in the path and the tool name make the by-ID intent clear.

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?

Provides useful context such as category, required scopes, and read-only status, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against sibling endpoints. The intended usage is implied from the endpoint and name rather than stated.

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