inforcer_users_get

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

The description discloses that the tenant parameter accepts multiple identifier formats and is resolved to the numeric Client Tenant ID before the request, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. 'Read-only' is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation but consistent. The tenant resolution behavior is the key added value here.

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 two sentences long, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the tenant resolution detail in the second. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description supplies all necessary invocation context: what it does, which parameters are needed, and how the tenant identifier is resolved. There is no output schema to explain return values, but 'full detail' reasonably implies the return payload. Given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description largely repeats the tenant parameter explanation already present in the schema and adds no extra detail about user_id beyond 'The user ID (Entra object ID)' already in the schema. It does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the structured schema provides.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full detail for a single user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like inforcer_users_list, which presumably lists users rather than retrieving one user's full detail. The tenant resolution detail adds further specificity without confusion.

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 usage for retrieving a single user's details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as inforcer_users_list or inforcer_groups_get. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling. The guidance is clear enough but leaves the contrast implicit.

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