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 that results include satisfaction score and supported suggestion count, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or auth requirements for the /api/v2/admin/users endpoint.

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 that front-load the action and then enumerate filters, ending with the endpoint. Efficient, though the parenthetical field list is parenthetical clutter rather than essential 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?

For an 8-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and filter dimensions but omits pagination behavior (cursor vs page interplay is only in the schema), auth requirements, and response shape. Adequate but leaves gaps an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema with format and semantics. The description only restates the query/email/suggestion filter concepts at a high level and adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema. 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 clear verb (list/search) and resource (end users and admins), and enumerates returned fields plus filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself reasonably from uservoice_get_user (single lookup) but doesn't explicitly name list_supporters or other list siblings as alternatives, 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?

The description implies usage through the filter options it enumerates (text, email, supported suggestion), which tells an agent what dimensions are queryable. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no guidance on choosing this over uservoice_get_user or uservoice_list_supporters, and no prerequisites.

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