Users: get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on behavior for a nonexistent ID, auth/permission requirements, or response shape – but it does not contradict the annotations, so it meets the minimum viable bar.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits what the agent should expect on a missing/invalid ID and how this differs from users_me/users_list, which are the practical questions for this tool.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('User ID', integer). The description's 'by ID' merely restates the schema and adds no format, range, or sourcing detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (user) with the lookup key, so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-name siblings like users_me (current user) or users_list (enumeration), so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The description never says to use this for an arbitrary user versus users_me for the caller or users_list for enumeration, so routing among the users_* siblings is left entirely to inference.

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