get_user

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential errors, unauthorized access, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the fact that an ID is required. This lack of additional context leaves the agent with only the basic implied safety of a read operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is useful, and there is no superfluous information or structural issue.

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 of a single-parameter get-by-ID operation, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for invocation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return structure or content beyond 'detailed information,' which is vague. For an agent, this is minimally acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and a single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra semantic contribution from the description.

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 action (Get) and resource (detailed information about a user) with the required key (by ID). It is distinct from sibling get_* tools because the resource is a user, and it is distinguished from search_users by the explicit ID-based lookup. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what fields are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_users. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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