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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint GET /users and the purpose of the returned ids, but does not disclose pagination behavior or what constitutes a 'user' record.

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?

The definition is two short clauses with the resource and purpose front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 one fully documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what a returned user record contains or whether inactive users are included.

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%, and the single limit parameter (1-100, default 25) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already does the work.

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 and resource: listing the account's users, clarified as team members, with ids intended for assignments. This clearly distinguishes it from get_* tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list_* tools.

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 phrase 'with ids for assignments' implies a usage context — retrieving user IDs to reference elsewhere — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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