getUser

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of response format, pagination, permission requirements, or what happens with includes. It fails to provide any extra transparency that would help the agent predict side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise (two words), but conciseness is not the same as usefulness. While there is no wasted text, the single phrase fails to earn its place because it provides almost no substantive information. It is under-specified rather than elegantly brief, lacking any structured detail that would aid comprehension.

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 moderate complexity—nested objects, required parameters, no output schema, and a schema with zero descriptions—the description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot infer what the tool returns, what the include parameter controls, or how format affects the response. Nothing about the tool's behavior or data shape is communicated, making it nearly impossible to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, so the parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and description. The description 'Show user' gives no indication of what userId, format, or include mean, nor which are required. Since the description must compensate for the schema gaps and does not, parameter semantics are effectively absent.

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 'Show user' is a minimal restatement of the tool name and doesn't clarify which user is meant. It doesn't specify that it fetches a single user by ID, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like getUsers (list) or getCurrentUser (current authenticated user). The verb 'show' is vague and lacks the specificity needed for an agent to know exactly what action occurs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention that it's for retrieving a specific user by ID, nor does it contrast with listing users or fetching the current user. Agents are left without any decision-making information, making it impossible to select this tool appropriately.

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