Fetch all users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' sentence merely repeats structured data. It adds nothing about pagination behavior (schema warns per_page is 'not honored by every endpoint'), result size, or the meaning of filter_sync_status.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, but the second half ('Read-only') is redundant with annotations and the terse framing leaves the tool under-identified. Short is not the same as efficient here.

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 an unfiltered-by-default behavior and a sync_status filter, the description omits what is returned, how paging behaves, and how the result differs from other user lists. With no output schema, that burden should fall on the description and doesn't.

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 four parameters are already documented, including the response_format enum and the per_page caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline but is not value-add.

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 verb 'Fetch all' with the endpoint '(GET /microsoft_teams/users)' identifies the resource, but the prose itself says only 'all users', which is ambiguous against siblings placetel_list_users and placetel_list_webex_users. An agent must read the parenthetical URL to know which user collection is meant.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling Microsoft Teams tools (import/sync/disconnect) or of list_users/list_webex_users as alternatives. The agent gets no criteria for choosing this tool over near-identical list endpoints.

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