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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description reinforces this with the underlying endpoint (GET /v1/users) but adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no pagination behavior, no result-size guidance, no note on what happens with the optional filters. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the resource and its purpose, plus the endpoint reference. No filler, no restatement of the title or name.

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 six-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description omits return shape and paging behavior (e.g., that results are id-bearing user records and that `next` is preferred for deep paging, which lives only in a parameter description). It is sufficient to call the tool, but not complete about the interaction.

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%, with each of the six parameters individually documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only tangentially enriches the role parameter by naming sample role values, which the schema already does as well. 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?

The description names the resource (users in the account) and disambiguates the term by listing the concrete roles it covers (agents, brokers, lenders), then states what the returned ids are for. No sibling tool lists users, so there is nothing to differentiate against, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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 gives a clear situational trigger: use this to get the ids you need when assigning people, tasks and deals. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., how to look up a single known user), so it is context-rich but not a full when/when-not rule.

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