get_user

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies this is an 'admin action' (authorization requirement), mentions the return format ('username, email, language, admin status, and timestamps'), and notes the prerequisite of using list_users first. While annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds practical usage constraints.

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?

Extremely efficient three-sentence structure with zero wasted words. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, specifying return values, and providing usage guidance. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and a simple single parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, return format, and authorization context. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description compensates by listing return fields. Could benefit from mentioning error conditions or rate limits.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only reinforcing that it's a 'numeric ID' without providing additional format or validation details.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information'), target resource ('specific user account'), and key identifier ('by numeric ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_users by specifying this is for individual user details rather than listing users.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use list_users to find the user ID first') and provides prerequisites ('Requires Application API key'). The description also indicates this is an 'admin action' which helps differentiate it from non-admin user operations.

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