get_users_user_group

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

Description goes well beyond annotations: it states auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled under a 30-per-10s cap and retried on 429/5xx, results are sorted with newest first, default pagination limit is 20, and non-2xx replies surface as tool errors with specific HTTP status meanings. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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 structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and is front-loaded with a one-line summary. While slightly longer than minimal, every section contributes useful information, especially error handling and usage context, with no fluff.

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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers return format, error semantics, pagination, ordering, authentication, and rate limiting. It also provides sibling context and clear guidance for safe calling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value for the parameters: it mentions walking pages via `page` and the default page size, but the schema already explains both parameters well, including page-number behavior. No significant compensation for gaps is needed.

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 the operation: 'Get users of a user group' and 'Retrieves all the users who are members of the user group specified by the provided group id.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_user_group (group details) and add_user_user_group/remove_user_user_group (mutating membership). The resource and verb are both explicit and unambiguous.

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 'Use when' section explicitly says it is safe for speculative lookups and reporting, and warns against using it for changes, pointing to the matching write tool. It also lists related User groups tools, giving an agent clear routing guidance and alternatives.

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