users_get_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: filters rely on expensive LIKE operators and can degrade database performance. It omits other traits an agent would need, such as auth requirements, result ordering defaults, and total-count/return behavior.

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 core purpose and the filter caveat are reasonably front-loaded, but there is boilerplate ('GET /api/users', 'Tags: Users Controller') and a trailing Russian sentence that merely restates the pagination parameters already given in the schema. It mixes languages and repeats information without adding value.

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 list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers pagination and a filter performance warning but says nothing about response shape, total counts, or auth. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps an agent might need to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate. It adds useful semantics for filters (expensive, frontend-oriented) and repeats start/size pagination, but sorting, filterModes, and globalFilterMode remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving several parameters opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get all users') plus the pagination model ('offset-based pagination') and endpoint path. It is clear what the tool does, though it does little to distinguish itself from the many sibling list/read tools (e.g. users_get_users_stream, users_get_users_tags).

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 provides a real usage caveat (filters are frontend-oriented, use expensive LIKE operators, and may hurt DB performance), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as users_get_users_stream or users_get_user_by_id, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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