get_user_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clarifies that the operation is a read/retrieval action and previews the return fields, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose error behavior, missing-ID handling, authentication needs, or whether any filtering is applied via client_slug.

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, clearly front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target, and illustrative return fields. Every part contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 two-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the lookup key and illustrates the output. The lack of an output schema and absence of error-handling notes are minor gaps given the tool's low 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that user_id is the lookup key and gives return-field examples; it does not explain the role of client_slug beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna' / returns) and a specific resource ('um usuário específico pelo seu ID'), which clearly distinguishes this tool from the plural get_users sibling. It also gives concrete return-field examples (email, nome, role_id), removing any ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 makes clear that this tool is for fetching one specific user by ID, so an agent can infer the appropriate use case. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer get_users or other alternatives, but the singular-by-ID framing provides clear context without needing an exclusion clause.

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