users_get_users_stream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the keyset pagination model and that filtering is supported, and the raw 'GET' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about auth requirements, result ordering, default page size (250), or what the response contains.

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-loads the endpoint and purpose, but includes low-value noise: a raw HTTP path, a 'Tags: Users Controller' line, and a trailing Russian sentence that restates pagination already covered in English.

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 an eight-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema list endpoint, the description is minimally adequate: it explains the pagination model and that filters exist, and the schema covers the individual filters. It omits sibling differentiation and any note about response shape or empty-result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight filters including cursor and size. The description only repeats 'pagination via query-parameters: size' and adds no format, enum, or interaction semantics beyond that.

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 mechanism (cursor/keyset) and that filtering options exist. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling users_get_users or users_resolve_user, which appears to overlap, 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?

No guidance on when to choose this stream endpoint over users_get_users, users_get_user_by_id, or users_resolve_user, and no prerequisites (auth, rate limits). The only usage hint is that filtering options exist, which is inferred rather than stated.

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