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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive semantics, so the burden is lower, yet the description still adds a genuine behavioral trait not in the schema: default ordering ('Newest first as Street orders them') and the paging pattern via page/page_size. It stops short of describing the response envelope (data/included/next_page) or soft-delete visibility, which the schema covers separately.

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 tight sentences that front-load the resource definition before ordering and paging details. 'As Street orders them' is slightly soft language and the trailing 'GET /users' is mild redundancy, but there is no padding.

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 paginated list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the ordering and paging contract an agent needs to iterate pages. The shape of the response (array vs. included/next_page) is assumed rather than stated, which is the only real gap.

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 all eight parameters are already documented, including trashed, include, and the created/updated range filters. The description only echoes page and page_size, adding nothing about the filter parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource and disambiguates the vague term 'users' by parenthesizing 'the agency's staff' and enumerating returned attributes (name, job title, contact details, deactivated state). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling street_get_user, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous from the 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?

The description implies usage ('List users', with paging guidance) but never says when to prefer this over street_get_user or how to narrow via the date filters. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated; the agent must infer that this is the browse-all path.

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