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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds account scoping and the downstream purpose, but says nothing about pagination limits, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond what the schema's page/page_size fields imply.

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 sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the use case immediately after. The trailing "Teamleader: users.list." mapping is mildly redundant but harmless for traceability.

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 4-parameter, zero-required list tool with full schema documentation and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (users/colleagues) and why to call it. No output schema exists, but the return concept is adequately conveyed; only result shape details are 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%, with page, term, status and page_size all documented inline (including the Teamleader default of 20). The description adds no filter syntax or behavioral notes about the parameters, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("List the users (colleagues) in the Teamleader account") and clarifies that 'users' means colleagues, removing ambiguity. It does not, however, distinguish itself from teamleader_get_current_user or teamleader_get_contact, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

It gives a concrete use case: "find a user id to assign deals or tasks to", which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. get_current_user for the caller's own record) or exclusions, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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