ghl_user_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds OAuth scopes ('users.readonly'), which clarifies authentication requirements but does not describe return behavior, pagination, or other side effects.

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 very concise (three lines) and front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 a straightforward get operation, but it lacks details about the response structure (no output schema) and does not clarify how this tool differs from similar user retrieval tools, which would be helpful given the large context of sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (userId) already documented. The description does not add any semantics or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get User' and provides the endpoint, indicating it retrieves a single user by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, search, and get_by_location, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate from those alternatives.

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 given on when to use this tool versus other user-related tools (e.g., ghl_user_search, ghl_user_get_by_location). The description only provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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