Get a user

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world safety, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: contact and HR details are withheld/redacted unless include_contact_details is set. That privacy default is a meaningful trait not carried by the annotations. It doesn't cover error behavior for missing users, keeping it from a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core identity (one employee by ID) before enumerating the optional payloads. No filler, though the heavily parenthetical authorisation clause is slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 4-parameter read with no output schema, the description adequately describes what comes back and the default redaction behavior. It omits what happens when the user is not found or when include flags are false, which would fully close the gap.

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 all four parameters (including the detailed include_contact_details redaction note) are already documented. The description restates the contact-details gating and the composite meaning of the group/authoriser flags, adding only marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (one employee by partner ID) and enumerates the payload: groups and authorisation hierarchy. This cleanly distinguishes it from list_users and other siblings at a glance.

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?

Usage is implied by the singular scope ('One employee by partner ID'), which signals this is the single-lookup counterpart to list_users. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over list_users or that partner IDs come from list_users, leaving routing to inference.

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