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

The description adds the detail that roles are included in the response, which is helpful context beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations. However, it does not disclose behavior such as default pagination, the effect of omitting company_id, or whether it returns all users across companies. Given the annotations already declare safety, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it omits essential information. It does not meet the standard of being 'appropriately sized' because it lacks the detail needed for an agent to use the tool correctly. Two or three sentences would be more appropriate.

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's moderate complexity (3 optional params, no output schema) and the large number of sibling list tools, the description is inadequate. It does not differentiate this list from others (e.g., hires_list_companies) or explain how the parameters filter results. It provides no context about the expected response shape or behavior.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (page, size, company_id). It fails to explain what these parameters control, how they interact, or which are required. Since the description is the only source of parameter semantics, this is a critical gap.

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 action (list) and resource (company users), and adds a detail about roles. It is more specific than a tautology and conveys the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling hires_get_user, which would clarify the difference between listing and retrieving a single user.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving multiple users as opposed to a single user, nor does it explain any conditions or prerequisites. Users are left to infer usage from the name and context.

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