identity_get_paginated_org_users_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value: pageStart is 1-based, and serviceDefinitionId is accepted in the schema but explicitly NOT supported as a filter. Notably it claims a default page size of 20 while the schema declares pageLimit default 128, an internal inconsistency the agent must resolve.

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?

Deprecation and replacements are correctly front-loaded, but the body carries noise: markdown headers (###), a replacement-API bullet list, and a truncated access-policy table that ends mid-row. The pagination details are buried after the migration content.

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 deprecated read-only paginated list with no output schema, the description covers paging behavior and deprecation but never describes the shape of the returned user records (beyond 'encapsulating organization users'), and the access-policy table is cut off, so the permission model is left incomplete. Adequate, but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an upgrade by explaining that pageStart is a 1-based index and that serviceDefinitionId is currently non-functional, neither of which the schema says. The added 'defaults to page size of 20' conflicts with the schema's pageLimit default of 128, weakening otherwise useful parameter guidance.

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 concrete verb+resource: paginated listing of organization users via GET /csp/gateway/am/api/v2/orgs/{orgId}/users, with pagination semantics described. It is specific about what is returned ("response encapsulating organization users") but does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as identity_get_orgs_by_org_id_users, identity_search_users, or identity_get_paginated_group_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?

Leads with [DEPRECATED] and names three concrete replacement endpoints (/cloudapi/1.0.0/users, .../users/{{userUrn}}/preferences, /scim/v2/Groups), which is strong use/avoid guidance. It stops short of saying when this tool is still the right choice versus the near-identical sibling listing tools, so the routing is only partially resolved.

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