List users

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds two things annotations cannot: the required 'users:read' scope and the PII-exposure warning. It does not discuss pagination/return-size behavior, though the schema already states all pages are fetched automatically.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, then the permission requirement, then the risk caveat. No redundancy or filler; each sentence adds a distinct piece of information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by enumerating return fields, and it supplies the auth scope and a PII caution for a low-complexity, two-optional-parameter read tool. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are optional with documented defaults, so the schema carries the parameter burden entirely. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 organization members') and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, names, emails, roles), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It never names or contrasts the sibling get_user (singular lookup), so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: 'only use when the user explicitly requests member data,' which functions as both a when-to-use and a soft when-not-to-use rule. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g., get_user for a single member), so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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