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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds the endpoint path and the filterable surface, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or result limits beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core scope ('users belonging to an owner') is front-loaded and the endpoint reference follows as supporting detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description faces no burden to explain return values, and the 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The gaps — no note on pagination iteration or permission requirements — are minor for a read-only list endpoint, so it is nearly complete.

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 100%, so every parameter (owner, page, pageSize, search, isAdmin, activated, service) is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'activation/admin/search' filters merely restates three of these, adding no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('users'), and scope ('belonging to an owner (org)'), plus the underlying REST endpoint. The resource is distinct from siblings like codecov_list_repos or codecov_list_branches, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts an alternative, so it lands just 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?

It notes the optional filters (activation/admin/search), which implies some usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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