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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the returned field set and the host constraint ('GET /account/users on the account host'), which matters given the account-vs-project host split. Pagination on a potentially large account-wide list is not addressed.

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?

Three compact sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the result set and fields, the second justifies the call, the third pins the endpoint. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the fields. Annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is pagination/volume behavior for an account-wide list, which is not mentioned.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is possible, and there are no parameters to mis-document.

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 resource (account users) and enumerates what each entry contains (name, company, email, role, project count), plus the scope caveat that project-invited users are included. This implicitly separates it from fieldwire_list_project_users, though the sibling is never named.

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 only implied: 'User ids are what tasks use for owner and assignees' hints at why an agent would fetch this list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to fieldwire_list_project_users as the narrower alternative.

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