List Company Inactive Users

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: company_id defaults to the config-set value, pagination is controlled by page/per_page, the response reports pages remaining, and failures return error payloads with specific HTTP status codes. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations and fully sets agent expectations.

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?

Every sentence in the description has a purpose: purpose, filtering reference, use case, default behavior, return type, pagination, safety, error handling, and API endpoint info. It is dense but structured and free of 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 list endpoint with four documented parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers filtering, pagination, error handling, defaulting, and even references the underlying Procore API endpoint. It is fully self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds the defaulting behavior for company_id (to procore_set_config) and explicitly ties page/per_page to pagination control, both of which are not fully captured in the schema descriptions. This additional context raises it to a 4.

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 opens with 'Return a list of all Inactive Users associated with a Company,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope formulation. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_company_users (active users) and list_project_inactive_users (project scope) by explicitly stating 'company inactive users.'

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?

It states 'Use this to discover company inactive users or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it,' providing clear when-to-use context. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is strong enough for most agents, warranting a 4 rather than a 5.

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