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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates returned fields and states that passwords and keys are never returned, which is valuable security context for an agent.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: it states what is listed, what fields are returned, and a key security exclusion. The endpoint reference is short and does not distract. Every sentence carries useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully lists the returned fields and notes that sensitive credentials are excluded. Pagination behavior is handled by the schema. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about ordering or whether results are filtered by the caller's permissions.

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 both pagination parameters are fully documented in the schema with defaults and limits. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific verb and resource: listing the organization's users, with scope ('field workers and admins') and returned fields. It is clearly distinguishable from creation/search siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_user for single-user retrieval.

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 listing purpose is implied by 'List the organization's users', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_user or other user-related siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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