Get User

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

Annotations already establish this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the type of data returned, which helps an agent know what to expect. It does not describe error cases or tenant behavior, but those are partially covered by the schema and annotations.

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 two short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope and lookup method, the second defines the output. No filler or redundancy.

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-only fetch with one required parameter and full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not discuss not-found behavior or when tenantId must be supplied, but the schema and annotations already provide the key operational constraints. The absence of an output schema is offset by the explicit return-field list.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates that userId can be an ID or email and adds the return fields, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. It is adequate but not enriching.

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?

States a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource ('user'), and the lookup key ('by their ID or email address'). It also summarizes the return payload (profile information: name, email, job title, department), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_user and search_users.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for retrieving a specific user when an identifier is known. It does not explicitly name alternatives like search_users for unknown identifiers, so it lacks full when-not guidance, but the 'by ID or email' phrasing gives clear contextual direction.

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