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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: pending invitations are included alongside active users. It says nothing about result size, default of 50, or pagination flow, which are left to the schema.

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, front-loaded clauses with the resource and returned fields up front. The trailing 'GET /v1/users' is redundant implementation trivia but costs little.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the most important missing piece — what each returned record contains and that invitations are mixed in. Pagination and filtering behavior are covered by the schema, so nothing essential is absent.

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 limit, offset and search are fully documented in the schema, including the next_offset pagination hint. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable but adds no value beyond baseline.

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 concrete resource — account users plus pending invitations — and lists the fields returned (name, email, role, team), which is more specific than the title alone. It is distinguishable from siblings like sarbacane_list_contacts or sarbacane_list_webhooks, though that separation comes from the resource name rather than any explicit contrast.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other list_* siblings, and no mention of prerequisites such as admin permissions needed to see account users. The endpoint string 'GET /v1/users' adds no usage context.

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