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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions billing (1 credit per call) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid IDs. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful behavioral context beyond the billing note.

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 description is extremely short (one sentence plus billing info). It's concise but under-specified. The billing note is useful but the description lacks substance. It's not verbose, but it's too minimal to be considered well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (fetching multiple users by IDs), the description is incomplete. No output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral details. The description doesn't explain what the response looks like, error handling, or any limitations. For a tool with one parameter, it's still under-specified.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'ids' parameter ('you can separate with commas') and an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 'Users By Rest IDs' and the group 'User', which indicates it fetches users by their REST IDs. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'get users by IDs') and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_v2_UserByRestId (singular) or get_v1_1_Users. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 alternatives. The description only mentions billing per call. It doesn't explain when to use this plural version vs get_v2_UserByRestId (singular) or other user lookup tools. No exclusions or context provided.

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