io_get_user

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds nothing on top of it: no behavior for an unknown/unauthorized ID, no error semantics, no note about throttling. It essentially restates the purpose rather than disclosing traits beyond the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource and lookup key all appear immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and the view parameter explicitly hints at response-shape concerns that the description never addresses. It also omits failure behavior for a missing ID, leaving real gaps for a lookup 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 description coverage is 100%, so both the required id and the compact/full view enum are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds only 'by ID', which is redundant with the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get), resource (iOffice user) and scope (single, by ID), which cleanly separates it from io_list_users and the other io_get_* resource lookups. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the resource noun rather than stated explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of io_list_users as the alternative for bulk retrieval. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the phrase 'by ID'.

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