get_users

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the filters use expensive LIKE operators and can degrade database performance. That is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs before invoking. It still omits result size/return shape, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the caveat, then the route. Three sentences with little waste; the performance warning is long but 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description says nothing about the returned user shape or total-count/pagination metadata. Combined with four undocumented parameters and no alternative-tool routing, it is only partially complete for a 6-parameter list endpoint.

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 only 33% (size and start documented), leaving filters, sorting, filterModes, and globalFilterMode unexplained. The description gestures at 'filters' but gives no structure, accepted keys, or sort semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all users') plus the pagination model (offset-based), which is clear. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as find_user, get_user_by_id, or get_users_stream, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a genuine usage warning (filters are frontend-oriented and expensive), which is useful, but never says when to pick this tool over find_user, resolve_user, or get_users_stream. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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