hires_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description partially carries the burden. It discloses pagination ('Returns paginated results') but doesn't mention authorization needs, whether it's read-only, or the structure of role context. It adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, and use cases. It could mention the need for company_id or what data is returned, but the schema fills in parameter details, making it reasonably complete.

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% with descriptions for page, size, and company_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about pagination and role context but doesn't enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond 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 clearly states 'List users for the target company with role context', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like hires_get_user (single user) and hires_list_hiring_team (hiring team members) by focusing on all users with roles.

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 context: 'useful for access reviews and hiring-team management', implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use cases help guide selection among list-focused siblings.

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