Get user

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; 'Fetch' implies a read with no side effects, but permissions, behavior on missing/invalid OID, and error responses are unstated. Because an output schema exists, return-structure details needn't be in the description, which keeps this at an adequate rather than deficient level.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the caveat second. The trailing sentence is somewhat tangential to this tool's invocation but is short and adds identifier convention context rather than padding.

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 lookup with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and roughly what is returned. It omits how an agent obtains a valid OID in the first place (e.g., via search_users) and any behavior on not-found OIDs, which are the main remaining gaps.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the midPoint object OID'), so the schema already does the work and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only that lookup is by OID and that OIDs are not the preferred identifier when writing elsewhere, which is marginal added meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Fetch a single midPoint user by OID') plus the scope of returned data (identity attributes and status), which separates it from list-oriented siblings like list_my_teammates. It does not explicitly name search_users as the alternative, so the differentiation from sibling retrieval tools is only implied.

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?

The second sentence gives a convention about naming people by display names when writing, but that is guidance about other tools rather than about when to call this one. There is no statement of prerequisites, no 'use search_users if you only have a name', and no exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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