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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral value by disclosing that deployment keys and passwords are never returned, which tells an agent the result set is deliberately redacted and unsuitable as a source of credentials.

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?

Three short fragments covering contents, exclusions and endpoint; nothing is padded and the returned-fields list is front-loaded. Slightly telegraphic rather than a flowing sentence, but every clause earns its place.

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 read-only paginated list with a 100%-documented schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description supplies the missing pieces: the exact returned fields and the redaction guarantee. No output schema is needed since the return shape is described inline.

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 page, per_page and server_id are already fully documented in the schema (including the next_page chaining hint). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 the exact resource ('system (Linux) users on a server') and enumerates the returned fields (id, username, deletable), which distinguishes it from runcloud_list_database_users and other list siblings. The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than restated, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named (e.g. vs runcloud_list_database_users). The only routing hint, 'see runcloud_list_servers' for server_id, lives in the schema rather than the description.

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