list_tenant_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List', but does not explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or pagination. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the action, output, and use case. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description specifies the output fields and use cases, which is adequate for a simple, parameterless list tool. It does not mention pagination or limits, but the lack of output schema makes this acceptable. Slightly more detail on potential volume or filtering would improve completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to describe.

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 clearly states the tool lists all users of the current tenant, specifying the exact output fields (role, active flag, passkey count, last login). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_service_accounts, which targets a different resource.

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?

The description mentions it is useful for access reviews and off-boarding checks, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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