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 is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: deleted users are still returned and are flagged with is_disabled. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields, though it omits pagination or result-size behavior.

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 compact sentences with the resource and the returned fields front-loaded and the endpoint appended as a locator. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense and slightly awkward to parse.

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, describing the returned fields is valuable and mostly done. However, for a 6-parameter listing tool with only 67% schema coverage, the description should at least hint at the available filters and result-set scope, which it does not.

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 coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies the semantics of role ('admin or not') and status ('active or deactivated') and ties them to the is_disabled flag, but says nothing about the email, teams, firstname, or lastname filters that make up the remaining parameters.

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 names the resource (users/salespeople of the account) and enumerates the returned fields, and the trailing 'GET /users' anchors it to a concrete endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling nocrm_get_user (single-user fetch), but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from the name and result-set wording.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like nocrm_get_user, and no mention of the available filtering dimensions (email, teams, name). The agent gets no routing guidance beyond the tool name.

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