Get User

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' strongly implies a non-mutating read, which is useful, but it never states read-only behavior explicitly, nor what happens when the identifier matches no user or multiple users. For a simple lookup this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the usage rationale immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It leaves minor gaps around not-found/ambiguous-match behavior and read-only confirmation.

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% and the single 'user' parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'User ID, name, or email address'. The description repeats this without adding format, precedence, or ambiguity-resolution detail, so 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?

States a specific verb ('look up') and resource ('user'), and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (ID, name, email). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling 'list_users', so the singular-lookup-vs-list distinction is left implicit rather than stated.

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 second sentence gives concrete usage context: resolving user IDs surfaced in card details (assignments, comments) into human-readable info. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternative (e.g. list_users for bulk retrieval) and offers no exclusions.

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