get_firm_user_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, omitting details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or output format. This is insufficient for a mutation-free retrieval tool.

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?

Description is a single 8-word sentence, which is concise but front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leaving gaps in usage and parameter guidance.

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?

While the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description lacks context about the resource's semantics, typical use cases, or relationship to sibling tools. An existing output schema reduces need for return info, but missing annotations and parameter details lower completeness.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The description mentions 'by ID' but does not explain the 'mapping_id' parameter's format, constraints, or meaning beyond its name. This adds minimal value over the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a specific firm user mapping by ID.' Verb 'Get' matches read operation, resource 'firm user mapping' is specific, and 'by ID' indicates singular retrieval. Sibling 'get_firm_user_mappings' (plural) reinforces distinct scope.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving a single mapping by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_firm_user_mappings' or 'delete_firm_user_mapping'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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