Users: Get an user details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding the auth mechanism (api-access-token header) and the notable behavioral caveat that text may arrive in Persian/Arabic and that IDs/phone numbers can use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the endpoint, then auth, then the encoding caveat. All sentences carry information; the digit-encoding note is slightly tangential to a getter but still relevant to supplying the ID correctly.

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 single-parameter, fully documented, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers endpoint, auth, and input encoding. It does not describe the shape of the returned user, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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%, so the id parameter is already documented and baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by warning that the numeric ID may be expressed in Persian or Arabic-Indic digits, which affects how the agent should format the value.

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 clear verb+resource ('Get the details of a user') and pins it down with the concrete endpoint GET /platform/api/v1/users/{id}, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling list/create/update/delete user tools. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 only implied: the endpoint path makes clear it fetches one user by ID, and the auth note hints at prerequisites, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to alternatives such as list_account_users or get_user_sso_link. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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