Get User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the return payload ('Full user record including sys_id, name, email, department, manager, roles') and demonstrating flexible lookup identifiers. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra value beyond them.

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 efficiently structured into Args, Returns, and Examples sections with no fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the examples provide concrete usage clarity without unnecessary length.

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 lookup tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It states the return format, covers all lookup methods, and provides examples. No additional context is necessary for the agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds example values for the identifier parameter and repeats the response_format options, but these add marginal value over the schema's own descriptions. It does not significantly deepen 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 'Get a ServiceNow user by username, email, or sys_id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_users or get_record by focusing on single-user lookup by identifier and providing examples.

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 usage through its explicit lookup-by-identifier scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like servicenow_list_users or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it falls short of clear guidance.

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