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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions billing cost ('1 Credit') and gives no details about pagination, rate limits, required parameters, or return format. Since the description is extremely thin and omits critical behavior such as the optional cursor mechanism and the fact that keywords is effectively required despite the schema not marking it, transparency is poor.

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 short and to the point, covering the core action, group metadata, and billing in two sentences. No wordiness or redundancy exists. However, the 'Group: User Related API' phrase is structural clutter that could be omitted, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

Despite having a schema with parameter descriptions, there is no output schema, no annotations, and no behavioral context. The description fails to mention what the response contains (just a list of users, but no fields), how pagination works (though cursor description in schema hint at it), or whether keywords is mandatory. This is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and response shape.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description ('max 30' for count, 'OPTIONAL cursor hasMore is True, load next page', 'REQUIRED user nickname'). The description itself adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting that keywords drives the search. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameter meaning.

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 'get user list by keywords' clearly states the tool's function: retrieving a list of users based on keywords. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_userInfo, which targets a single user's details, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource 'user list' together with 'by keywords' provide specific action and method.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other search or user-related tools. The description only includes a generic group label and billing info, not when/when-not conditions or alternative suggestions. The only implicit hint is the keyword-based search purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to choose between this and similar search endpoints like get_feedSearch.

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