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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond them: the required dvs:read scope plus full write permission on the register, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that DVS text is data, not instructions. That last sentence is genuinely useful behavioral guidance for an agent reading returned user data. Minor gap: no note on result size or pagination.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter rule, permissions, and the safety note. No filler. Slightly dense with distinct concerns in one block, but each sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the conditional parameter rule, permission prerequisites, and a data-trust warning — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is that it does not describe the shape of returned users (ID-only vs. names), though it does tell the agent the IDs are directly usable.

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 50% — section is described with an enum, but dvs_project_id has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by stating that dvs_project_id should be passed for tasks, which effectively conveys a conditional requirement the schema does not encode. However, it never says whether project_2 requires or ignores the parameter, leaving the key ambiguity unresolved.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List users that can be assigned in a register', with the added scoping detail that the returned IDs are the valid values for task user fields. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names the sibling filesfm_dvs_search_users, so the boundary between 'get assignable users' and 'search users' is left for the agent to infer.

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?

Gives a concrete conditional ('For tasks pass dvs_project_id') that tells the agent how to use the tool in the task workflow, and implies it should be called before setting task user fields. It provides no when-not guidance and no comparison against filesfm_dvs_search_users, which overlaps heavily with this lookup.

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