identity_get_users_by_acct

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the deprecation status and the per-role access matrix (Platform operator and whitelisted Service Accounts only, Org Owner/Member denied). It does not state what happens when the account is not found or what shape the response takes.

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?

Front-loading [DEPRECATED] is exactly right, but the body is a markdown table flattened into prose with HTML entities (✔️, ❌) that cost tokens without adding clarity. The one genuinely useful constraint ("one user can belong to exactly one organization") is buried mid-sentence.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema GET the coverage is serviceable: deprecation, auth requirements, and the single-organization constraint are all present. But the two parameters remain opaque, and no return-value or error behavior is described, which matters even for a deprecated endpoint an agent might still be forced to call.

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 only 50% and the description does nothing to close the gap. The 'acct' parameter gets no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema's bare "(path)", and 'expandProfile' is completely undocumented in both description and schema, leaving the agent to guess what values it accepts.

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: "Get the user belonging to the current organization," reinforced by the path template GET /csp/gateway/am/api/users/{acct}. The purpose is unmistakable, but it offers no differentiation from lookalike siblings such as identity_get_user_in_any_organization or identity_get_user_info_in_organization, so an agent cannot tell from this text which one to pick.

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 [DEPRECATED] marker plus "Use this API instead: /scim/v2/Users" is a strong, explicit steering instruction, and the access-policy table tells the agent which roles may call it. The gap is that the named replacement is a raw HTTP endpoint rather than a sibling MCP tool, and no sibling comparison is given for the non-deprecated identity tools.

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