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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds useful context beyond that — the returned fields and the purpose of the returned id — plus the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or permission requirements for an openWorld read.

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 sentences and an endpoint reference, all of which earn their place. The core capability is front-loaded and the usage hint follows immediately with zero filler.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (id and name) and how to consume it, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It omits whether the list is paginated or filtered by visibility, a minor gap for a selector endpoint.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It does add meaning by explaining the semantics of the returned id (owner_id for create/update calls), which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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 the users of the account' — and clarifies the payload ('id and name'), which no sibling does. No sibling is named as a contrast, but there is no other user-listing tool in the set to confuse it with, so the resource itself does the differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream use case: 'Use the id as owner_id when creating or updating records,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., lookup or search) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing rule.

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