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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the default scope (all accessible teams) and the error-handling contract ('Teams that cannot be read are reported under `errors`'). This is meaningful disclosure for a read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the error contract and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries information.

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, single-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description naming the `errors` result field and 'duty status', though the remaining per-user return fields are left unspecified.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's '(all accessible teams by default)' restates the schema default rather than adding new syntax or format detail. 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+resource ('List the users of the given teams') and adds a distinguishing detail ('with duty status') that separates it from signl4_list_users and signl4_get_duty_status. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, but the team-scoped framing is clear enough to route correctly.

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?

'all accessible teams by default' clarifies the default scope, implying usage when team_ids is omitted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus signl4_list_users or signl4_get_team, and no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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