dealdesk.list_desk_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the eligibility filter (card/case owners) which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, scoping behavior across projects, or permissions. For a simple read-only list this is acceptable but not rich.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, and the operation is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains the tool's role in the owner-assignment workflow. It omits pagination/ordering behavior, which is the only notable gap for a list endpoint.

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% and the projectId parameter already documents the omit-vs-required rule for multi-project tokens. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource (list DealDesk users) and narrows scope to those eligible as card/case owners, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_skills and list_contacts. It even names the columns returned (userId, email, displayName).

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?

Explicitly says to use it before setting ownerUserId, and names the four downstream tools (create_card, patch_card, create_case, patch_case) that depend on it. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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