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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it describes the permission tiers (verified/delegated owners, full users, restricted users), the 100 non-owner limit, and the API key access requirement. That is useful read-path context, though it doesn't cover pagination or exact return shape.

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 content is valuable but the phrasing is repetitive, restating 'Users of a property with their permission' and then 'the people on the Users and permissions screen of a property with their permission.' Two sentences say nearly the same thing before getting to the limit/role details.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers role semantics, the non-owner cap, and the auth prerequisite. Return format isn't described, but no output schema exists, so a bit more detail on the response shape would complete it.

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% and the 'property' parameter is fully documented with format examples, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'a property' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a clear verb (list) and resource (users of a property) and enumerates the permission roles returned. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling add_user/remove_user tools, but the verb makes the read-only nature obvious.

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?

The description implies usage by describing what the Users and permissions screen shows and mentioning the count of non-owner users, but it never states when to call this versus add_user or remove_user. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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