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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, but the description adds useful behavioral context: the endpoint is GET /account/users, and the response includes name, email, id, and active status. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but it goes beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences plus a compact endpoint reference. The key output information is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without repetition.

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 names the fields returned and clarifies what the id is for. For a zero-parameter read tool, this is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

This tool has zero input parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline score of 4 applies; the description appropriately avoids discussing parameters it does not have.

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 account's JobNimbus users (team members). It also names the returned fields, distinguishing it from sibling list tools for contacts, jobs, tasks, and invoices.

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 description explains that the returned id is what owners, sales_rep, and owner_ids take, which clearly signals when an agent needs this tool. It does not name an explicit alternative or exclusion, but the usage context is strong.

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