user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'query user.' It does not reveal read-only status, return format, pagination behavior, or the meaning of the numerous nested variables. The example structure hints at complexity but fails to explain side effects or output.

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 very brief, which is concise, but the structure is poor: it leads with a two-word phrase then dumps a long truncated JSON example. This isn't well-organized, and the example is cut off, leaving incomplete information. It earns a mid score because it is short but not effectively structured.

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?

This is a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides almost no context: no explanation of what the query returns, no guidance on the nested filter variables, no mention of pagination or any special behavior. It is greatly insufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 100% (all parameters have at least type info), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by providing an example that shows the internal structure of 'filter' (with keys like customers, ids, name, pods, roles, users) and 'order' (direction, orderBy), which the schema does not explain. However, it doesn't explain each parameter's purpose, so only marginal added semantics.

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 says 'User · query user.' which essentially restates the tool name and provides minimal information. It doesn't distinguish this singular 'user' query from siblings like 'users' (plural), 'me', or 'create_user'. The verb+resource is present but vague and nearly tautological.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a user ID, or any context where this should be preferred over 'users' or other user-related tools. The lack of any usage direction earns a 'no guidance' score.

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