get_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only conveys a read intent ('Get details'). It does not mention permission requirements for viewing other users, behavior on missing or invalid IDs, or the response shape. No contradiction exists since there are no annotations to conflict with.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the brevity leaves room for a sibling-differentiation note that would have improved it.

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 tool is low-complexity — one well-specified required parameter — so the description is near-sufficient, but gaps remain: there is no output schema so the agent cannot anticipate the return shape, and the overlap with get_current_user is unresolved. Adequate for a simple read, with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% — user_id is fully documented with type, UUID format, pattern, and a description ('The user UUID'). The description's phrase 'a specific user' adds only marginal confirmation of the ID-based lookup, so the baseline 3 applies with the schema doing the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific user' communicates a fetch-by-ID operation. It is not a tautology — 'specific' plus the required user_id parameter makes the granularity clear — but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_current_user, which retrieves the calling user's own details.

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 on when to use this tool versus the natural alternatives in the sibling list (list_users for enumeration, get_current_user for the calling user's own profile). The agent is left to infer from the user_id parameter that this targets a known user; there is no explicit when/when-not framing or alternative routing.

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