Get Aircall user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'v2 Users API' detail, which provides minor context beyond the schema. It does not disclose return formats, error handling, or pagination (not applicable for a single-get), but the annotation coverage lowers the burden. This meets the baseline for a read-only tool with some added context.

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 concise and front-loaded sentence: 'Get one Aircall user by numeric ID or email address using the v2 Users API.' No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the exact lookup method and the API version. The only omission is a statement that the response contains the full user object, which is expected but not explicit. Minor gap, hence 4 rather than 5.

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% for the single parameter 'identifier', already defining it as 'Aircall user ID or email address'. The description repeats this ('numeric ID or email address') without adding new semantics. According to the guidance, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description adds no extra value beyond the schema.

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's function: 'Get one Aircall user by numeric ID or email address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Aircall user'), and specifies the two supported lookup identifiers. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like 'aircall_list_users' because it explicitly targets a single user.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need one user identified by ID or email. It provides clear context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'aircall_list_users'. However, given the tool name and the phrase 'Get one', the use case is evident and no exclusionary guidance is needed for a simple getter.

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