query_security_principals

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive nature. The description adds real context beyond them: reads are bounded, disabled users are included unless 'enabled' is explicit, and results are catalog visibility rather than effective permissions. Missing are details on what 'bounded' yields when limits are hit.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, scope stated first and caveats front-loaded after. Each sentence carries distinct, useful 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 a 12-param read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description conveys scope, bounding, default-inclusion behavior, and the catalog-vs-effective distinction. Only pagination/completeness reporting nuance is left entirely to the schema.

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?

At 75% schema coverage the schema already documents top, enabled, max pages, and alias behavior. The description only adds a generic summary of the filter axes ('optional ID/name/business-unit filters') without clarifying the bare name_keyword/principal_id params, so it lands at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 (Read) and resource (visible users, teams, roles) plus the filter axes (ID/name/business-unit). The closing note that catalog entries do not imply effective permissions implicitly separates it from the security-context siblings, though it never names them.

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 line 'Catalog entries do not imply effective record permissions' is a genuine routing hint distinguishing this inventory query from get_record_access/get_principal_security_context. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives or stating exclusion conditions, so it is not a 5.

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