GET /users/{id}

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no mention of authentication requirements, response shape, or difference from sibling lookups.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the trailing 'Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation usersid' is boilerplate that adds no value and consumes roughly half the text.

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-param read-only lookup with full schema coverage and annotations, the minimum is met. It falls short only in not disambiguating among the many sibling user-detail endpoints.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('User id'), so the schema fully documents it. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('View user details' for GET /users/{id}'), so the basic purpose is clear. However, the catalog contains numerous near-identical user retrieval tools (snipeit_get_user, snipeit_gen_usersid_1, snipeit_gen_usersid_2, snipeit_gen_usersme), and the description offers no differentiation between them.

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 on when to use this versus snipeit_get_user or the other usersid variants, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage from the HTTP path alone.

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