v2_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds the inventory of exposed attributes but no behavioral detail beyond that — no indication of whether the list is filtered, paginated, or scoped to a site.

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 resource and its exposed fields, followed by the single most decision-relevant constraint. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by listing the meaningful account fields. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it does not say whether the listing covers all accounts or a filtered subset.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 the resource (controller accounts) and enumerates the data it surfaces — role, type, 2FA, temporary-validity window, hours left — which effectively defines it as a read/list of account records and separates it from the write/delete siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, reading as a noun phrase rather than 'List controller accounts', which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It gives real scope guidance: this server can delete an account but can never create, extend or enable one, which tells the agent that account provisioning is out of scope and that deletion lives elsewhere (v2_delete_user). It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use for deletion, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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