get-user

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover transparency. It states the tool 'Returns complete user information', implying a safe read operation. It does not disclose if any side effects occur or permission requirements, but for a GET-like tool, this is adequate. No contradiction with annotations as none exist.

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, using a single sentence with an emoji for emphasis. It front-loads the purpose and includes key return fields without unnecessary fluff. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the input context (user ID source) and output (profile fields). It lacks mention of default values or error handling, but the schema complements these gaps. Fairly complete for its complexity.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds that user_id comes from search-users, but does not elaborate on the boolean parameters beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; description adds marginal value.

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 'Get comprehensive user profile' when you have their user ID, specifying the resource (user profile) and action (get). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the ID comes from search-users results, and lists returned fields (role, timezone, avatar, custom profile fields).

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 explicitly says 'when you have their user ID (from search-users results)', guiding the agent to use this tool only after obtaining the ID via search-users. It implies alternatives like search-user-by-email for email-based lookups, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct sibling comparisons.

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