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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is known. The description adds the underlying API endpoint 'Kinde: GET /api/v1/users' and the business scope, but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and zero wasted words. The optional filter note and endpoint reference are compact and non-redundant.

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 simple list tool with five optional, fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and filtering. It does not mention pagination or result shape, but the schema's next_token and page_size parameters provide enough for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description only restates that email and user_id are optional narrowing filters, adding no syntax, format, or behavior beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), resource ('users'), and scope ('in the business'), plus optional filters. It implicitly differentiates from kinde_list_organization_users and kinde_get_user via the business-wide scope, but does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 phrase 'optionally narrowed by email or user id' describes parameter usage, not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus kinde_list_organization_users, kinde_get_user, or other list tools.

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