webmaster_get_user

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly signals a read-only operation ('Read') and adds meaningful context that OAuth credentials remain server-side, which reassures the agent that no token handling is exposed. It does not overpromise side effects or contradict any annotations.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and an important security behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or boilerplate text.

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 zero-parameter, schema-bearing read tool, the description is sufficient: it names what is read and the OAuth context, and the output schema covers return values. Slightly more usage context would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed; the description already identifies the implicit OAuth context.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('OAuth account user identifier'), making the operation unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools, which target recrawl, sitemaps, wordstat, direct, metrika, etc., so an agent can select it immediately.

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 the tool is for obtaining the current OAuth account's user identifier whenever that value is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no direct sibling alternative for user lookup, so the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap.

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