Get user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the required 'view_profile' scope and the note that no local effect approval is needed. These are useful auth/workflow disclosures, though the 'Reviewed native GET /user' phrasing is cryptic jargon.

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 short and front-loads the core action before the scope/approval details. It is efficient, though the internal-sounding 'Reviewed native GET /user' fragment is low-value phrasing that a caller gains little from.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description is roughly adequate. However, it never clarifies what a 'user' resource is relative to sibling concepts like accounts or subscribers, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 single 'account' parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the caveat about credentials/ownership. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Get user', which essentially restates the tool name and title. It does add the underlying endpoint ('native GET /user') and the required scope ('view_profile'), giving some concreteness, but it never distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings like list_accounts or get_subscriber. Purpose is understandable but not sharpened.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_user versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no named sibling for contrast. The only routing hint is the 'scope: view_profile' phrase, which is an authorization detail rather than usage guidance.

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