get_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it retrieves the 'authenticated user's' profile, implying authentication requirements, and mentions 'demographic and contact details' as output content. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or whether it's read-only/safe—critical for a tool with no annotations. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently adds context without redundancy. 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details like response format or error handling. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, it should do more to be complete, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly avoids adding unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter semantics to cover beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves the authenticated user's FHIR profile' (specific verb+resource). It adds context about accessing 'demographic and contact details,' which helps distinguish it from generic 'get' operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read' or 'search,' which might also retrieve user data, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides clear usage guidance: 'Use this tool when you need to access the current user's demographic and contact details.' This gives context for when to invoke it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'read' might retrieve other users' profiles), so it falls short of a 5.

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