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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully declares the operation is 'Read-only' and scopes results to the connected Kommo account, but does not mention authorization prerequisites, pagination, or what the returned user records contain.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. Every phrase adds actionable context: resource, purpose, and read-only safety.

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 zero-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly: it lists Kommo users and indicates they supply responsible_user_id values. It could be stronger by sketching the return fields, but the core completeness is present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description adds useful context by explaining that returned values are intended for pipeline_config.responsible_user_id, but no parameter documentation is needed.

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 names a specific resource (users of the connected Kommo account) and ties it to a concrete use (values for pipeline_config.responsible_user_id). This distinguishes it from sibling list_kommo_pipelines, which handles pipelines rather than 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?

It clearly implies when to use the tool: to obtain user IDs for responsible_user_id assignment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear for a zero-parameter list tool.

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