get_user

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as errors. This adds concrete behavioral context that the annotation alone does not convey. No contradiction with 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the latter half includes generic, non-applicable instructions (project_id/group_id, pagination) that bloat the description. It could be more concise by removing irrelevant clauses while retaining the essential error and usage info.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, read-only nature, and error handling, which is largely complete for a single-parameter get tool. However, the incorrect references to non-existent parameters and pagination introduce noise, reducing overall clarity and completeness for the agent.

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 schema covers user_id with 100% coverage, but the description falsely references `project_id`, `group_id`, and 'pagination fields' that do not exist in this tool's schema. This is misleading and could cause an agent to attempt invalid parameters, outweighing the minor clarification about numeric ID vs. URL-encoded path.

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?

Clearly states the verb-resource pair ('Get user details by ID') and explicitly distinguishes it from list/search tools for discovery. A 'known resource or result' is contrasted with multiple-resource discovery, leaving no ambiguity about its role among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use for a known resource, choose list/search for discovery, and follow the documented identifiers. However, the misleading clause about 'project_id or group_id is accepted' and 'pagination fields' is inapplicable to this tool (only user_id exists), which introduces slight confusion despite the primary guidance being sound.

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