Find users holding a right (e.g. who can pay) — cross-organization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key behavior: it sweeps all organizations, includes full-access users implicitly, and defaults to payment rights. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., rate limits, performance on many orgs), authentication requirements, or output format, which are significant for an unannotated tool.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then giving a concrete use case and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's operation and common use cases. It clarifies the default rights and the full-access nuance, but it does not explicitly describe how the organization parameters (organization vs. organizations vs. allOrganizations) relate to each other. Since schema descriptions cover these, the omission is acceptable, though a brief note would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the default behavior of `rights`, the significance of `includeFullAccess` (full-access users implicitly hold every right), and provides examples of other rights to check. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sweep') and clearly states the resource ('organizations', 'every user who holds a given right') and scope ('cross-organization'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wflow_list_users by focusing on rights-based search across organizations, and gives a concrete example ('which users can pay across organizations?').

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 clear usage context by stating the default rights (payment rights) and directly answering a common question. It also explains how to extend usage by passing the `rights` parameter with examples. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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