superops_technicians_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the filtered-list implementation quirk, the exact return shape (contact details, role as {roleId, name}, group roster array), and that designation, businessFunction, team and reportingManager are null unless the tenant assigns them. It also proactively rules out skills, ticket counts and response-time metrics, which prevents wasted follow-up calls.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: purpose first, implementation caveat second, return shape and unavailable fields last. No padding or restatement of the name.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics, and it does so completely, including the null-unless-assigned fields and the explicitly unavailable metrics. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents technicianId as the unique technician user ID. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which is the correct baseline when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information for a specific technician by their user ID'), and explicitly differentiates itself from the list sibling by explaining SuperOps has no single-technician endpoint and this filters the list. An agent can distinguish it from superops_technicians_list without opening either schema.

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?

Clear context for retrieval of one technician's details, and the implementation note implies the list tool is the alternative for multiple records. It does not explicitly say 'use technicians_list to enumerate' or state prerequisites, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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