io_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no error behavior for an unknown ID, no note about what the call returns, and no mention of the compact/full response-shape tradeoff that the schema itself documents.

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 zero filler - the action and scope come first. It is efficient, though arguably underspecified rather than deliberately tight given the available context.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits anything about failure modes (nonexistent ID) or how the result relates to io_list_users, which would round out an agent's understanding.

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%, and the 'view' parameter's enum is explained in unusually rich detail inside the schema itself, so the description carries no extra parameter burden. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb (get) and resource (iOffice user) with the scoping qualifier 'single ... by ID', which distinguishes it from the io_list_users sibling in the set. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives or contrast with io_get_reservation/io_get_building, so the differentiation is only implicit.

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, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., an existing user ID), and no pointer to alternatives such as io_list_users for lookup by other criteria. The single sentence only describes the action, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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