get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the result is a 'sanitized profile or not-found', which is helpful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, which would be valuable for safe invocation.

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 highly concise at two sentences, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and return type adequately. It could mention possible error states beyond 'not-found', but overall it is complete enough for a straightforward 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes the sole parameter (userId) as 'Okta user id to look up'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the verb 'look up' and resource 'Okta user by id', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools which are all mutation operations (deactivate, grant, provision, revoke). It also specifies the result format, adding completeness.

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?

While no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, the sibling tool context makes it clear this is the read-only lookup tool. The description is straightforward and implies use when a user's ID is known. A slight deduction for not explicitly listing alternatives.

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