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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the underlying endpoint (GET /2/users) and the role-code legend (1 admin, 2 manager, 3 employee, 5 supervisor), which is genuinely useful disclosure, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or sort order.

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 tightly packed sentences plus a short endpoint note, with the resource and its filters front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though the API-endpoint tail is marginally lower value than the rest.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, this is close to complete: it names the entity, the filterable dimensions, and the role-code vocabulary needed to interpret results. Missing pagination/sorting behavior is the only notable gap.

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 all six parameters are already documented with meaning (search, location_id, only_deleted, only_pending, show_deleted, show_pending), which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates the schedule-limit and search behavior but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema; the role codes clarify returned values rather than parameter semantics.

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 the employees, supervisors, managers and admins in the account') plus the optional narrowing dimensions (schedules, name/email search). It implicitly separates itself from single-user reads like wheniwork_get_user, but never names a sibling such as wheniwork_list_eligible_users_for_shift, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 'optionally limited to some schedules or searched by name/email', giving the agent a sense of when the filters apply. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to an alternative tool, so the routing burden stays with the agent.

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