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 genuinely non-structured context — that passwords are never returned, and that this maps to GET /user/list — which is exactly the kind of extra disclosure that earns credit above the annotation baseline.

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 plus the endpoint path, with the verb+resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information: returned fields, a privacy constraint, and the underlying HTTP route.

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, the description usefully enumerates returned fields and the profile values, and the schema fully documents all six parameters, so an agent has enough to call it correctly. It doesn't mention pagination behavior or the default 'active' filtering, but those live in the schema.

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% with all six filter/pagination parameters documented in the schema (page, show enum, team_id, team_name, page_size, skilled_trade). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies even though the field list tangentially hints at what can be filtered.

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 ("List users") and enumerates the fields returned (login, name, profile, teams, skills, location), which makes the tool's scope concrete and distinguishes it from singular reads like get_user. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as list_teams or get_user, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the agent must infer from the name that this is the enumeration tool and that get_user is for a single record. Usage is implied but not stated, matching a 3.

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