get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), implying a safe read operation, and explains the intended purpose. However, it does not address behaviors like 404 responses or authorization, though for a simple read-by-ID tool this is a minor gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a practical use case. No redundancy or filler; every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 (one integer parameter, GET operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It provides the endpoint, purpose, and use case without needing to explain return values. No further context is necessary for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that the user_id parameter corresponds to requester_id/assignee_id values from tickets, linking the parameter to its real-world usage. The endpoint template also confirms the parameter mapping, adding value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states 'Get a Zendesk user by ID' and includes the exact REST endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_users by emphasizing ID-based lookup and connecting it to ticket tool outputs.

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 phrase 'Use to resolve requester_id / assignee_id values returned by ticket tools' gives a specific, practical context for when the tool should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough to prevent misuse with search tools.

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