report_all_users_by_so

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: concurrent fetching from SO and customers, deduplication by userId, and return format (CSV/JSON). No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with key information (deduplicated, concurrent, return format). Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description covers purpose, behavior, and return format. It lacks details about the output structure (e.g., field names) which is acceptable without output schema. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it generates a deduplicated user report for all customers under a service org, specifying concurrent fetching and deduplication by userId. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_all_users and list_users by focusing on deduplication and SO-wide scope.

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 implies use when a comprehensive deduplicated report across an SO is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like list_all_users might serve simpler needs, but this is not clarified.

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