users_accessible_nodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the per-node output shape but says nothing about auth requirements, scope limits, or whether the result reflects live vs cached routing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the answer (which nodes), then the return breakdown, then a short usage cue. The colon-and-em-dash listing is terse but dense and waste-free; no padding sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by enumerating the returned per-node fields (config profile, squads, inbounds). It still omits result container format and pagination, but for a single-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the userId semantics. It only implies them via "a user can actually reach" and adds no format, identifier source, or validation detail beyond what the schema already shows (positive number, required).

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: which nodes a given user can actually reach, and enumerates what is returned per node (config profile, active squads, inbounds). It does not name the closely related reverse-direction sibling squads_accessible_nodes, so the agent must infer the distinction from the wording alone.

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?

"Handy for debugging squad/inbound routing" gives a soft usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to alternatives such as users_get, squads_accessible_nodes, or metadata_node_get. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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