fiken_get_user

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:true already indicates no side effects. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond what the annotation provides. It does not clarify authentication requirements or response characteristics, so it adds minimal value 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning every word present.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. However, it could be improved by hinting at the structure of the returned user information (e.g., 'including name, email, and company details') to aid understanding, especially since no output schema exists.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it does not mislead. A score of 4 is appropriate as it avoids any issues but does not actively enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool returns information about the authenticated Fiken user, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('authenticated Fiken user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other entities like bank accounts, invoices, or projects.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the function (getting user info), but no guidance is given for scenarios like user retrieval vs. other resource queries.

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