get_user_by_user_id

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET method and path, which reinforce read-only behavior, but it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or any other side effects beyond what annotations and the output schema already imply.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: purpose first, then endpoint, then the parameter mapping. There is no filler or redundant prose, and each line serves a clear function.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only retrieval tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. The main missing piece is usage differentiation, but that is already captured under usage_guidelines and does not block a correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly identifying user_id as a path parameter and showing its placement in the endpoint template. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields, and it is sufficient for the single required parameter.

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 the action and resource: 'Get user by ID' and provides the exact endpoint 'GET /api/v1/user/{userId}'. This is more specific than a bare restatement because it identifies the HTTP method and path, and it is implicitly distinct from subresource siblings like get_user_by_user_id_quota and get_user_by_user_id_watchlist.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_user, get_user_by_user_id_requests, or update_user_by_user_id. The description simply restates what the tool does without conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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