List Users With Access To A Generic Tool Item

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds behavioral details: it explains public vs private behavior, mentions the HTTP method (GET), pagination metadata, and references the endpoint for Procore API. No contradictions.

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 description is a single paragraph with several sentences, including the endpoint URL which may be redundant. However, it is mostly focused and provides necessary information without excessive fluff. Could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: purpose, behavior for public items, pagination, required parameters, and a documentation link. It could be more explicit about response structure but is adequate.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly listing required parameters and explaining how page/per_page control pagination, which aids in understanding usage beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing users with access to a private generic tool item. It explicitly distinguishes behavior for public items (returns empty array) and provides specific use cases like enumerating Custom - Configurable Tools, pagination overview, and filtering.

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 description gives some context for when to use it (e.g., 'Use this to enumerate Custom - Configurable Tools') and references documentation, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or differentiate from sibling tools like list_generic_tool_items or list_users_with_access_to_a_generic_tool.

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