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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /{account}/users), which confirms a read, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or permissions needed to enumerate account users.

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 zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the API reference detail. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With no output schema, the description could have sketched the return shape (a paginated user list) so an agent knows a cursor loop may be needed. As written it is adequate for a simple two-parameter list tool but leaves the response contract entirely implicit.

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%: both 'account' (with a pointer to textus_list_accounts' slug field) and 'cursor' (with the view.next convention) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users') with an explicit scope ('who belong to an account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like textus_get_profile or textus_list_accounts. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose statement: call it when you need the users of a given account. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over textus_get_profile, nor any prerequisite note beyond the account slug reference buried in the schema.

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