Users: Get User SSO Link

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the required auth header ('api-access-token' Platform app API key) and the note that text values are sent unchanged while IDs may use Persian/Arabic-Indic digits. It does not disclose whether the returned link is time-limited or single-use, which would be valuable for a credential-bearing link.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the endpoint plus auth line are tight and useful. The trailing sentence about Persian/Arabic-Indic digit handling and unchanged text is generic boilerplate that is somewhat tangential to this single-ID lookup, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, for a tool whose whole product is a login link, it omits the return shape (URL format) and any link lifetime/one-time-use semantics, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the load and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details for the ID beyond what the schema already states.

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 a single sign-on (SSO) login link for a user') and pins the exact endpoint (GET /platform/api/v1/users/{id}/login). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling gapify_platform_get_user because the SSO-link resource is named 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?

The description implies usage (retrieve an SSO login link for a given user) but never states when to prefer this over get_user or other user tools, nor any prerequisites such as the user being active or SSO being enabled for the account. Usage is inferable solely from the name.

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