list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses pagination behavior (auto-paging, CTM per_page cap ~100), the truncation warning for large lists, and the default status filter. This is rich behavioral context beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence definition followed by essential details in separate focused paragraphs. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (pagination, status defaults, multi-account scope) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most key aspects well. The omission of account_ids is a slight gap, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain max_items, per_page, and status with practical meaning (e.g., 'raise max_items for accounts with a large user list'). However, account_ids is not mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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 opens with 'List users (agents, admins) across sub-accounts,' which clearly identifies the action, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (single user) and list_sub_accounts (sub-accounts themselves).

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?

Provides concrete usage guidance: defaults to active sub-accounts, how to include archived/canceled/paused via status, and when to raise max_items for large lists. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context for when to use this tool is clear.

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