list_business_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state a configuration dependency and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'list', but it does not describe pagination behavior, default output fields, or error conditions. The schema defines pagination parameters, so the description adds limited additional transparency beyond the verb and prerequisite.

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 two sentences long, immediately states the action, and wastes no words. It includes the essential prerequisite in a compact second sentence, achieving high information density without verbosity.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite, but lacks any indication of the return value structure since there is no output schema. It also does not reference sibling tools or special behaviors like automatic pagination. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall completeness is moderate for an agent needing to understand what it will receive.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'after', 'limit', and 'fields'. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the description does not need to compensate, but it also adds no extra value.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'users of the configured business', making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_account_users by scoping to the business context. The mention of META_BUSINESS_ID further clarifies the target 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 gives a clear prerequisite (META_BUSINESS_ID env var) which informs when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_account_users or other list tools, nor does it mention situations where an alternative would be more appropriate. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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