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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by naming the Platform API as GET /users and documenting the return shape as { users[], next }. This adds useful pagination context beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not discuss rate limits or authentication.

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 three tight sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second summarizes filtering options, and the third gives the API endpoint and return shape. There is no filler, redundant restatement of the title, or unnecessary detail.

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 read-only list tool with nine parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential response shape ({ users[], next }) and confirms the safe GET nature of the operation. All parameters are documented in the schema, so the description covers the remaining high-level context well. It could have added explicit sibling routing guidance, but the core information needed to call the tool is present.

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 schema fully documents all nine parameters, including defaults and pairings like metadatakey with metadatavalues_in. The description adds only a high-level grouping of filter categories, which is useful but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the users in the application,' and names the supported filter dimensions (activity, nickname, ids, metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from single-user tools like sendbird_get_user and from list tools for other resources.

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 its usage as the bulk listing tool for users, and the sibling names suggest alternatives like sendbird_get_user for individual retrieval. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over the alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the guidance at the implied level.

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