user_users__get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added context is the raw endpoint path; it says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for an unknown UUID, or what the payload looks like.

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?

One short sentence preceded by the tool name and endpoint, front-loaded with the verb and the keying identifier. Nothing is padded, though the endpoint path segment is redundant with the annotation title.

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 single-record read with two fully documented parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of guidance on the returned shape and on sibling selection keeps it from a 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry detailed descriptions, including the 'fields' server-side projection and the userUuid reference type. The description adds no syntax, format, or example detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get user') and scopes it to a single user by unique identifier, plus the underlying endpoint path. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_users by the single-identifier framing, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the right call when it already holds a userUuid, and that listing/searching is a different path. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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