get_user_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the context that this tool is authoritative for severity and that it returns identity attributes, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral details such as staleness, data-source scope, or potential edge cases. With annotations handling the core safety traits, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds two purposeful sentences about severity and systematic use. It is concise and every sentence contributes meaningful guidance. The only minor issue is that the severity phrasing is slightly redundant with the usage instruction, but this is not wasteful.

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 single-parameter tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, why it matters, and exactly when to invoke it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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%, and the upn parameter already has a clear explanation with an example. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Récupère la fiche d'identité d'un compte' and enumerates the exact fields returned (poste, département, état, groupes, rôles). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as the one that determines incident severity, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from sign-in or risk-detection tools.

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 description gives strong usage direction: it should be called 'systématiquement avant de conclure sur un incident' and explains why severity depends on account privileges. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternativatives, so it doesn't quite reach a 5, but the context is clear.

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