getUser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing the required scope ('users:read') and explicitly marking it as '[READ-ONLY]', which clarifies it's a safe read operation. It also mentions the corresponding API endpoint, adding implementation context. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, rate limits, or response format details.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and including essential details like scope and read-only status. Every element adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose, scope, and read-only nature, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances. For a basic read tool, this is minimally viable but could be more complete.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'userId'. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or constraints), meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 the verb ('Gets') and resource ('details about a specific user'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from listUsers by focusing on a single user rather than listing multiple users, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling alternative.

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 implies usage context by specifying it requires 'users:read' scope, which suggests when authentication is needed. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus listUsers or other user-related tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the scope requirement.

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