provider_query_group_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only adds the phrase 'of any type' and the raw endpoint path; it says nothing about pagination behavior, how filter/sort affect results, or the shape of the returned user set, which are the real behavioral questions for a paged listing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the endpoint. Nothing is redundant, though the endpoint restatement consumes half the description's budget without adding agent-facing value.

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?

A paginated listing tool with three required parameters and no output schema needs at least a hint about pagination semantics, FIQL filter support and what a user record contains. None of that is present, so the description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently.

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%, so the schema already documents groupUrn, page, pageSize, filter, sortAsc and sortDesc. The description adds no meaning beyond the path parameter it echoes via the URL template, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: list users of any type belonging to the specified group. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as identity_get_paginated_group_users or the inverse provider_query_user_groups, leaving the agent to guess which 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the closely related group/user-listing siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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