cork_get_integration_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not disclose read-only status, pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or response shape; 'observed' hints at passive collection but is not a substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, though the extreme brevity does trade away deeper context covered by other dimensions.

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 paginated list tool, the schema plus this one-line description provides enough to make a basic call: the required parameter is documented and the resource is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still lacks information about response contents, tenant scoping, and why to prefer this tool over sibling getters.

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 schema already documents page, page_size, and integration_uuid, including saying where integration_uuid comes from, so the description need not repeat those. It adds no extra meaning over the schema and leaves tenant_uuid's role unexplained, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 uses a clear verb ('List') and a specific resource ('users observed from an integration'), so an agent can tell what operation is being offered. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cork_get_integration_devices or cork_get_integration_tenants, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'from an integration' implies this tool is for integration-scoped user listing, and the schema points to cork_get_connected_integrations as the source of the UUID. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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