find_bulk_assignable_users

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the read-oriented purpose and does not disclose pagination, default result limits, the deprecated username parameter, or the query/accountId mutual-exclusivity. This is a minimal disclosure for a search/list tool with no explicit behavior beyond 'find'.

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 six words and front-loads the core action and resource, with no filler. It earns its place as a title-like summary. However, the extreme brevity leaves useful usage and behavioral context for other dimensions rather than this one.

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?

This is a 6-parameter tool with one required key, no annotations, no output schema, and a close sibling find_users; the single-sentence description is not enough to select or invoke it confidently. Important operational details such as query/accountId exclusivity, pagination defaults, and distinction from find_users are absent. The description covers purpose only, so the overall definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond framing projectKeys in the context of assignability. It does not clarify the relationship between query and accountId or the paging parameters.

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 ('Find'), names the resource ('users'), and qualifies the scope ('assignable to projects'), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like find_users. It is concise and leaves little ambiguity about the action. It does not explicitly mention 'bulk' or contrast with sibling search tools, so it falls just short of top marks.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool rather than find_users or other user-related tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions. The only implied usage is from the purpose phrase itself, so an agent must infer when this variant applies.

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