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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read, so the description's added value is the role-code legend (1 admin, 2 manager, 3 employee, 5 supervisor) and the underlying endpoint GET /2/users. It omits pagination behavior and result size limits, which matters for an account-wide list.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The role-code legend is dense but useful; the trailing 'When I Work: GET /2/users' is largely redundant given the tool name and annotations.

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 full schema coverage, the description covers scope, filters and role-code interpretation adequately. Only pagination/return-size expectations are absent, which is a minor 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 (search, location_id, only_deleted, only_pending, show_deleted, show_pending) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the schedule and search filters without adding format or default details, so 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 specific verb and resource ('List the employees, supervisors, managers and admins in the account') plus the scoping options (schedules, name/email search). An agent can distinguish it from write tools like wheniwork_create_shift, but it never contrasts itself with the read siblings get_user or list_eligible_users_for_shift.

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 phrase 'optionally limited to some schedules or searched by name/email' implies when the filters are useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over wheniwork_get_user for a single lookup.

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