workiva_list_organization_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or even explicitly confirming it is read-only. The description adds no context beyond the function name.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and it front-loads the purpose before the args list. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though minimal.

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 tool has a single required parameter and an output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it gives no context about pagination, filtering, or error cases. For a simple tool, it is mostly complete but leaves gaps about edge cases and expected behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It restates 'org_id' as 'Organization ID', which adds almost no meaning beyond the schema's title and type. It does not explain where to find the ID, its format, or any constraints, failing to add value for the single parameter.

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 clearly states it 'List users in an organization' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities (roles, solutions, organizations) by specifying 'users'.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implicitly suggests usage for retrieving organization users, but it does not state exclusions or compare with sibling tools, making the guidance implied rather than explicit.

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