Account, me and users

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope by saying it returns the account, the API user, and all users with their IDs, though it does not discuss result size or pagination for an all-users response.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the key usage affordance for the returned IDs. There is no filler.

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 zero-argument lookup tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently names the returned entities and explains why the user IDs matter. It could be more complete by noting that the response lists all users, which may be large, but the core call behavior is clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4; the description correctly focuses on the returned entities rather than inventing parameter details.

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 three concrete resources: the Copper account, the API user, and all users with IDs. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling people-search tools like search_people or find_person_by_email.

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?

Gives a useful downstream usage note: use the returned user IDs as assignee_id in other tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_people, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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