get_users_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful detail that 'id' can be 'me' for the authenticated user, but it does not elaborate on response format or error conditions. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loading the purpose ('Get user profile') followed by the endpoint and parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or sentences. It is efficiently structured for quick 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?

For a simple read operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential information: purpose, endpoint, and parameter meanings. It lacks usage differentiation from siblings and detail on 'extended', but these are minor for a basic profile fetch. The presence of an output schema means return format does not need to be described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'id' well (slug or 'me'), but 'extended' is only vaguely described as 'Extended information to include in the response' without specifying what that information is or allowed values. This is a partial explanation that leaves ambiguity for the 'extended' 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 'Get user profile' and provides the exact endpoint GET /users/{id}/. This is specific and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that fetch sub-resources like lists, ratings, or watchlists. The resource and verb are unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_users_by_id_* tools. It does not mention that this is for the base profile only, or that other tools should be used for specific sub-resources. The agent is left to infer that from the tool name alone.

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