protect_get_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete return field set (id, modelKey, name, email, ucoreUserId), which is useful shape context, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs or permissions.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the return shape. No filler, no repetition of the tool name as a sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not have been enumerated (though doing so is harmless). For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations, the definition is essentially complete; only the ambiguity with protect_get_ulp_user/protect_list_users keeps it from a 5.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'User ID.' The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 details for a specific Protect user by ID.' An agent understands exactly what it fetches. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as protect_get_ulp_user or protect_list_users, which is what would push this to 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given beyond the implicit 'you have an ID.' With siblings protect_get_ulp_user and protect_list_users in the same namespace, the agent is left to infer which user-lookup tool applies. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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