get_suprsend_user

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

The description states 'Get' implying a read-only operation, but annotations include destructiveHint=true, contradicting the description. Following the scoring rule, this contradiction warrants a score of 1.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns). Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded. No redundant information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format (YAML with distinct_id, properties, channels, etc.) and covers usage context. It is complete for a simple get tool.

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 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Both parameters are already documented, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a SuprSend user's full state by distinct_id,' specifying the verb (get), resource (SuprSend user), and method (by distinct_id). It distinguishes from siblings like get_suprsend_object (for non-user entities) and get_suprsend_user_preferences (for preferences only).

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?

Provides explicit when to use (referencing a recipient by id needing properties or channel identifiers) and when NOT to use with specific alternatives for non-user entities, preferences, and subscriptions. This fully addresses usage guidance.

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