ise_ers_get_internaluser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. The description does not state whether the tool returns 404 on missing ID, any auth requirements, or the response format. For a read/get operation the risk is lower, but the description adds nothing about behavior beyond the one-line action.

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 a single concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It prioritizes the core action effectively. Given the schema's deployment parameter has a complete inline description, the brevity is acceptable.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. The absence of an output schema means the description could note what fields are returned or how to interpret the response. No error/not-found behavior is described. It's functional but not complete.

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 50% (id is undocumented, deployment has a rich description). The description only mentions lookup by ID, adding no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond its name. The deployment parameter is well-documented in the schema itself, and the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented id field or explain ID format/source.

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 'Get a single Internal Users object by ID' clearly states the verb (get), resource (Internal Users object), and scope (by ID). It distinguishes from list and search siblings, though there are many similar 'get by ID' tools with identical pattern, so differentiation comes mainly from the resource name.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving one object by ID, contrasting with list and search siblings (ise_ers_list_internaluser, ise_ers_search_internaluser). However, no explicit guidance is given on when to prefer this over the by-name or generic get tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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