get_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing an authorization constraint (non-admin accounts cannot fetch globally) and the compensating behavior of merging users across all active projects. That is exactly the kind of permission-dependent behavior an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then fallback rationale. Every sentence carries information, though the third sentence partially restates the second's fallback concept.

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 no-required-param read tool with full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete: it explains scope, permission limits, and fallback. It does not describe the shape or fields of the returned user objects, which is the main residual gap given there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents both project_id and fallback_all_projects, including defaults. The description restates the global-vs-project choice and the fallback rationale but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource (get active users) plus the scope it operates over (global or per-project). No sibling retrieves users, so it is trivially distinguishable, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with any other tool.

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?

Gives clear context for use — resolving users referenced as reviewers or assignees — and explains the exact condition that triggers the fallback path (global fetch forbidden for non-admin accounts). It stops short of stating when not to use the tool or naming alternatives.

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