get_users_product

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context: server-side auth injection, throttling with retries on 429/5xx, pagination limits, and a clear mapping of non-2xx responses to tool errors. No contradiction exists.

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 well-structured with labeled sections, front-loaded purpose, and no filler. Every sentence adds operational value: endpoint, behavior, auth, rate limits, return format, errors, and usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return format, error payloads, authentication, throttling, pagination, and scope. It gives an agent everything needed to call the tool safely and interpret failures.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that results are paginated and should be walked with 'page', and it clarifies the 20-users-per-page limit, which is not present in the schema.

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 all users by product'), gives the endpoint GET /v2/users/by-product, and defines exactly what is retrieved: users with access to the specified product. It also adds sorting and pagination detail, making it easy to distinguish from product-oriented siblings.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting') and when not to use it for mutations, directing the agent to the matching write tool. It lists related Users tools but does not precisely explain when to prefer this over similarly named tools like get_products_user or get_users_per_course.

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