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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the endpoint mapping and the fact that results are scoped to the account; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or ordering defaults beyond what the schema already carries.

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, front-loaded sentences with the resource scope first. The trailing endpoint-reference sentence is mildly redundant plumbing but is short and aids traceability, so it mostly earns its place.

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, zero-required-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gap: with no output schema, it does not hint at the shape of returned user records or how the sales-person subset differs.

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% (page, fields, filtro, orderBy, vendedor are all documented in-schema), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no extra meaning such as which fields are filterable via `filtro` or what `fields` accepts — 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 users and sales people of the account") plus the underlying endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is clearly distinct from the other list_* siblings by resource, but never names or contrasts them 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 only: it is a read/list tool for user and sales-person records. There is no statement of when to prefer this over egestor_list_contacts or other list tools, and no prerequisites (e.g. auth scope, that it is account-scoped) are spelled out.

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