get-user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得する' (get) implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes '詳細情報' (detailed information). The description doesn't mention whether this is a public API or requires specific permissions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.

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 user retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what '詳細情報' (detailed information) includes, what format the response takes, or any error scenarios. Given the complexity of user data and the lack of structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the returned data structure.

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 schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'username' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 'ユーザーの詳細情報を取得する' (Get user details) clearly states the verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('ユーザーの詳細情報' - user details). It's specific about retrieving detailed information rather than just basic data. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'search-users' or 'get-user-notes', which would require explicit comparison.

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 alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search-users' and 'get-user-notes' available, there's no indication whether this tool retrieves a single user by exact username while 'search-users' might handle partial matches or multiple users. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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