sigsci_get_corp_user

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get details') but omits critical information: no mention of permissions, side effects, or response structure. This is insufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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 a single, highly efficient sentence with no redundant or irrelevant content. It communicates the core purpose clearly and concisely.

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?

The description is adequate for the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), but it lacks detail on the response format and any behavioral guarantees. Some completeness is missing, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without exceeding it.

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 'Get details of a specific user in a corporation' clearly identifies the action (get), resource (specific user), and scope (in a corporation). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sigsci_list_corp_users by focusing on a single user retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigsci_list_corp_users for listing all users. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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