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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the pagination behavior (100 per page), which is useful context beyond annotations, but says nothing about rate limits, ordering, or total-count behavior for a paged external API.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler and the returned-field list up front. It is efficient but leans so terse that key usage guidance is omitted rather than merely compressed.

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, enumerating the returned fields (id, name, email, enabled) is a valuable addition, and pagination is covered. But for a company-wide list tool with multiple listing siblings, the absence of any disambiguation or filtering guidance (e.g., company vs department scope) leaves a real gap.

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%, so both parameters (page, enabled) are already fully documented, including the enabled filter default and the page/next_page semantics. The 'Paged, 100 per page' phrase merely restates schema content rather than adding new meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource (lists company users) and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, email, enabled), which lets an agent distinguish it from single-user and department-scoped siblings implicitly. However, it does not name those siblings (gocanvas_get_user, gocanvas_list_department_users) to make the scope contrast explicit.

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 only guidance is 'Paged, 100 per page', which is retrieval mechanics, not when to select this over get_user or list_department_users. There is no statement of when-not to use it or which alternative to prefer for department-scoped vs company-scoped queries.

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