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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context by naming the endpoint as GET and clarifying that results include staff and drivers, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or return shape.

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 resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the endpoint. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values or pagination behavior, but the schema covers the input side and the tool's purpose is clear enough to invoke.

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%, with page, per_page, and search_string fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: list users (staff and drivers) of the organisation, and even includes the backing endpoint. It is clear which resource it returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar list tools such as list_clients or list_passengers.

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?

It implies a simple listing operation but offers no guidance on when to use this versus sibling listing tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The parenthetical clarifies scope but not usage decisions.

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