get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns a 'full profile' and requires a user ID, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'full profile'. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and parameter usage, though minor improvements in structure (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling. With no annotations, it should provide more context to fully guide usage.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'id': it specifies that it is 'Required' and 'The user's unique identifier', and notes that 'Specific user IDs can be obtained through the lookup_users Tool'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose and source, though it could detail format constraints.

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 tool's purpose: 'Returns the full profile of the specified user.' It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('full profile'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'lookup_users' or 'get_team', which likely serve different purposes (e.g., listing vs. retrieving details).

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 implies usage by specifying that 'The ID of the user is the only valid unique identifier' and referencing 'lookup_users' for obtaining IDs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_users' or 'get_team'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons.

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