users_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not describe the return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple getter this is minimal but lacks depth.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no unnecessary information, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the input mechanism but omits return value details and potential usage caveats. It is minimally complete for a simple lookup but not rich.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter (userKey) with type, description, and required status. The description repeats the 'email or id' detail, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('a single user'), and the lookup method ('by email or id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like users_list, which handle multiple 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 word 'single' implies this tool is for retrieving one specific user as opposed to listing users, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or prerequisites. No exclusions are mentioned.

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