get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the key behavioral traits. The description adds no further context (e.g., no mention of required permissions, rate limits, or response format). It is consistent but does not enhance transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 very short and front-loaded, meeting the conciseness criterion. However, it may be considered too brief, lacking any elaboration that could be helpful. While it is not verbose, it could have included minimal additional detail without significant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete but missing a note on the return value (e.g., 'Returns a user object'). With full annotations and a clear schema, the description meets minimum viability but leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 for the only parameter 'id', which is well-documented. The description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameter; thus, it relies entirely on the schema. A score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get an user record' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (user record). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on different resources (e.g., get_account, get_course). However, it could be slightly more precise with 'Retrieve' or 'Fetch' instead of 'Get', and may be considered informal.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_users or other get_* tools). It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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