list_users

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them by disclosing that visible results depend on token permissions, which is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the core capability leading and the permission caveat second. Nothing here is wasted.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety, so the remaining burden is small. However, for a 10-parameter tool with a nested offset/cursor model and several undocumented enums, the description leaves an agent under-informed about how to actually drive the cursor parameters.

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 10 parameters and only 30% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only gestures at pagination and the name/email query. It says nothing about the type enum, detail, include_inactive, access_type_permissions, or the text_offsets/section_offsets/previous_page cursors.

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 (Read), resource (users), a scope qualifier (accessible), and the two main capabilities (pagination, name/email search). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling list_space_users, but an agent can still tell what this tool returns.

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?

"Token permissions determine visibility" tells the agent that results are permission-scoped, which is a useful contextual signal, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_space_users or get_current_user. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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