get_scale_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing the output semantics: linked scale tables, profile IDs, and the userIds value's role as scaleUserId. It does not contradict annotations, though it omits edge cases like no linked users or authentication requirements.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, and the second sentence adds a necessary integration hint about the returned userIds value. Every part earns its place.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does state the output consists of linked scale tables and profile IDs and explains how to use userIds. For a zero-parameter list tool with strong annotations, this is sufficient, though it could note behavior when no linked tables exist or explicitly reference sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden on the description. The schema description coverage is trivially 100%, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'linked scale tables and profile IDs,' clearly stating the tool's function. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_measurements or get_current_user by focusing on scale user/family profile linkage. No ambiguity remains about what this tool returns.

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 clear downstream usage guidance: use the returned userIds value as scaleUserId when selecting a family profile. It does not explicitly compare this tool against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of selecting a family profile is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over unrelated siblings.

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