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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoint path and lists returned fields (id, username, branch id), but it omits pagination, auth requirements, or other operational context.

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?

Very compact and front-loaded, with no filler. The parenthetical field list is slightly ambiguous about whether those are returned fields or parameters, which keeps it from a 5.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, it covers scope, status options, and returned fields. It still lacks sibling differentiation and pagination details, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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%: status is documented by the schema and the description reinforces its active/inactive/all options. organization_id is only indirectly explained by 'in an organization' and the path template, without format or requiredness clarification 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 the resource and scope clearly: users within a specific organization, with status filter options. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_users or search_users, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list/search tools. The organization-scoped usage is implied by the resource name and path, but alternatives and exclusions are not mentioned.

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