get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint, with no note on permissions, not-found behavior, or what a 'profile' contains, which is minimal 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint sentence is mostly redundant for an agent that already sees the schema and annotations.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, given many user-related siblings and zero schema coverage on the sole parameter, it leaves too much unsaid about scope, return shape, and differentiation from get_current_user.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. The endpoint path '{user_id}' weakly signals that the parameter is a user identifier, but it does not clarify whether it accepts numeric ID only, what happens with invalid IDs, or how it differs from usernames.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Fetches a user profile') and even names the underlying endpoint GET /users/{user_id}. It does not distinguish this from nearby siblings such as get_current_user, get_user_options, or list_users, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_current_user, get_user_options, or list_users. The only implied usage is that it fetches a profile by ID, leaving the choice among user-related siblings unaddressed.

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