users

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: admin permission requirements for 'list' and a behavioral note that 'from_workspace' is a fallback, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 structured with bullet points for each action, making it easy to parse. It is concise but could be slightly more front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information, though the formatting might be tighter.

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 read-only tool with 2 parameters, the description covers all actions and their usage. It lacks details on return values (no output schema) and potential pagination for 'list', but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the parameter meanings by explaining each action's context and required params (e.g., 'user_id' for get, 'from_workspace' as fallback). This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Get user information' and enumerates four distinct actions (list, get, me, from_workspace), each with clear purpose. It clearly distinguishes between actions, making the tool's functionality unambiguous.

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 usage context for each action: admin permissions required for 'list', user_id parameter for 'get', and a fallback strategy for 'from_workspace' when list fails. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'pages' or 'workspace'.

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