display_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: which fields are returned and that username/org ID/URLs are masked for privacy. However, the final alias sentence is muddled ('...of the new user'), which undermines clarity rather than adding it.

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 first two sentences are well front-loaded and earn their place. The trailing sentence about the alias is long, tangential, and confusing, weakening an otherwise efficient description.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and masking is the right move. But the definition omits any auth/org-context behavior (what happens when no targetOrg is given is only in the schema) and the alias note confuses rather than completes the picture.

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 never mentions targetOrg, so it adds nothing about the single parameter's semantics; the schema's nested targetOrg description (fallback to SF CLI default) does carry that meaning. Reported description coverage is low, but the schema does document the param, so this is a baseline 3 rather than a full gap.

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+resource: 'Display information about a Salesforce user.' An agent can distinguish this from list_connected_salesforce_orgs or get_default_org. It stops short of naming when this is preferred over those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite many sibling org/user tools (get_default_org, list_connected_salesforce_orgs, sobject_describe). The reader must infer the context from the description alone.

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