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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the underlying endpoint ('GET /users'), which is mildly useful for debugging but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or required auth beyond what the schema implies.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no padding. The API endpoint sentence is marginally useful rather than wasteful, though it could have been spent on usage guidance instead.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the definition is adequate. It still leaves an agent guessing about result contents and pagination strategy, which matters since there is no output schema.

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% — all four parameters (sort_by, page_size, page_number, sort_descending) are documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 DoorLoop users of the company.' The 'of the company' qualifier implicitly separates it from the single-user sibling doorloop_get_current_user, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the plain list semantics rather than stated. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over doorloop_get_current_user, nor any note about paginating through large result sets.

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