get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the user doesn't exist (error handling), response format, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word serves a functional purpose with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about the user, how errors are handled, or any operational constraints. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and expected outcomes.

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?

The description mentions the single parameter ('by email') which aligns with the schema's 100% coverage. However, it doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides through the email format validation. No additional guidance is given about email format requirements or edge cases.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('a single user') with the specific lookup method ('by email'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'detail_team'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'update_user' or 'delete_user' that also operate on users.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'get_user' over 'list_users' for retrieving user information, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication requirements or access permissions.

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