Contract Testing: Admin List Team Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only the pagination defaults, which duplicate the schema, and says nothing about ordering, total counts, empty results, or admin permission requirements.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the toolset and parameter notes are scannable. The parameter list is largely redundant with the schema and could be trimmed, but nothing is bloated or ambiguous.

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 simple, non-destructive paginated read with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the sibling disambiguation is missing.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the defaults. The description's parameter block restates teamId, pageNumber and pageSize without adding format, constraint, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List all users in a specific team') and flags the admin toolset. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as contract-testing_admin_list_users (all users) or contract-testing_admin_get_team_user (single membership), leaving the scope boundary to be inferred from the name 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for team membership, but the description never says when to prefer it over list_users, get_team_user, or get_team. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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