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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: the sort order, the exact fields returned, and — most importantly — that results are capped and `total` reports the pre-cap match count. The one gap is that it never says how to page past the cap, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is listing many records.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, followed by the return shape and the cap caveat. The nine-state parenthetical is long but earns its place by mapping directly to the enum an agent will pass.

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?

With only two optional parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description does nearly all the work an agent needs: what comes back, in what order, and that results are truncated. The remaining shortfall is the absence of any pagination or 'how to see more' note alongside the cap.

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%, so both `limit` (max 200, default 50) and `churn_state` are fully documented in the schema, and the description's enumeration of states simply restates the schema enum. The description contributes no extra semantics such as whether filtering happens before or after the limit is applied — which would be genuinely valuable here.

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 identifies the resource (the app's users) and its ordering (most recently active first), plus the fields returned and the churn state derivation. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the sibling get_user, so the reader must infer that this is the bulk-list version rather than the single-record fetch.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_user, list_creators, or a report tool. The churn-state enumeration hints at a filtering workflow, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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