get_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavior: it returns a 'JSON string' and enumerates the fields, including the 'accepted_at' null-if-pending and role enum semantics. It also notes account_id auto-resolves if omitted, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation has side effects or requires particular permissions; this would have been useful but the read-only nature of 'get' reduces the 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?

The description is compact and well-organized into a short opening sentence, Args, and Returns sections. Every sentence adds essential information: the main purpose, both parameter meanings, and the return shape. There is no fluff or repeated information, making it easy to scan.

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 that the output schema exists (so return structure is already declared) and the tool only takes two simple parameters, the description is actually richer than needed by also listing exact response fields. It leaves no obvious gaps for correctly invoking the tool: it explains what the tool does, the parameters, and the response format.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates. user_id is explained with its 'USR...' format, and account_id is described with its default behavior, 'Auto-resolves if omitted'. Both parameters get meaningful semantic information beyond the raw type definitions, which is especially important given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'one user', explicitly scoping to 'full detail' for a single user on the account. This clearly separates it from list_users and other user-related siblings, giving the agent an unambiguous understanding of what this tool does.

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 states the tool returns 'full detail for one user on the account', which implies it should be used when a single user's complete record is needed. It does not explicitly mention list_users as an alternative, but the 'one user' scope provides clear context, which is a well-defined 'when to use' signal even without an explicit exclusion.

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