get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond these by revealing auth injection is server-side, calls are throttled under a 30-per-10s cap with retry on 429/5xx, and non-2xx responses map to specific error statuses. It also clarifies the return format since there is no output schema. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 well-structured with labeled sections: purpose, behavior, returns, and usage guidance. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value—auth, rate limits, error handling, and alternatives are all relevant for correct invocation. The key read-only and GET details are front-loaded.

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 has only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, return format, error semantics, auth behavior, rate limits, and when to use it versus alternatives. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly explains the response structure, making the definition complete.

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%: the schema already documents both `id` (User Id or email) and `include_suspended` (filter flag with default false). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'by the provided user id,' so it stays at the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a user. Returns the user specified by the provided user id.' Combined with the read-only indicator and GET path, it is unmistakable what this tool does. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it is not for changing anything and listing related Users tools.

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 'Use when' section explicitly states when to call it: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool.' It names related Users tools, giving concrete alternatives for user-specific data, so an agent can decide between this and siblings.

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