list_users

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the response envelope ({total, offset, has_more, items}), pagination bounds (limit default 20, max 200), and that `contains` is a server-side filter on item fields. The only gap is no visibility into auth or rate limits.

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 purpose and packs return shape plus filter behavior into a compact space with no filler. However, the illustrative example '(e.g. CVE id or product name for vulnerabilities)' is irrelevant to a users listing and reads as boilerplate copied from another tool, which muddies an otherwise efficient entry.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return envelope and pagination contract, and covers the non-obvious `contains` parameter. The missing piece is any `offset` explanation, but overall it is complete enough to call the tool correctly.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It explains `contains` (server-side text filter) and bounds `limit` (default 20, max 200) but says nothing about `offset` semantics. Partial compensation 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 clear verb+resource ('List console users'), which is easy to distinguish from the mostly non-user siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with other list_* tools, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can identify it.

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 practical usage advice ('check `total` before paging through everything') and explains the purpose of `contains`, which implies a filtering workflow. However, it never states when to use this vs. alternatives or any exclusions, so 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.