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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new facts: the required dvs:read plus full write permission on the DVS register (a non-obvious escalation for a read call), the meaning of the has_access output, and an injection caution about DVS text. It omits matching semantics (prefix vs substring) and pagination behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, then add the conditional param behavior and the permission requirement with no filler. The closing security note is short and relevant rather than boilerplate, though it is the least load-bearing sentence.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisites, optional-param effect, and partial return semantics via has_access. What an agent still cannot predict is the shape of the returned user objects and how the limit interacts with results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partly does. It clarifies "pattern" as a name search and explains the effect of dvs_document_id, but the limit parameter (1-20) is entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

"Find organization users by name for @[USER:id] mentions" states a specific verb (find), resource (organization users), and lookup key (name), plus the downstream purpose (mentions). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling filesfm_dvs_get_users, so an agent must infer that one is a lookup while the other is likely a listing.

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 gives a concrete conditional: "With dvs_document_id, has_access tells whether the user can see that task," which tells the agent when to supply the optional parameter. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use this one.

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