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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description only restates this via "GET /users". It adds nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or account scoping constraints that would go beyond the structured metadata.

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 purpose and usage front-loaded, no padding. The trailing "Trengo: GET /users." is mildly redundant but harmless and compact.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and safety covered by annotations, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. Pagination semantics live in the schema, so nothing critical is missing, though no output-shape hint is given.

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 both parameters (page, sort) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or default guidance for page/sort beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 agents (users)") and clarifies the agent/user naming overlap, which helps separate it from contact- or team-listing siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is an alternative to, so it falls 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?

"use their ids to assign tickets or filter" gives clear downstream context for why an agent would call this rather than something else. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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