list_system_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical prerequisite (META_BUSINESS_ID) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'List.' However, it does not mention pagination behavior, response shape, error conditions, or side effects. For a simple list tool this is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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?

A single sentence efficiently conveys both the purpose and a key prerequisite. No filler or repetition. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (3 optional params, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient to understand what the tool does and what is required. It does not explain return values, but 'List' reasonably implies a paginated collection, and the schema already covers parameters. Slightly more detail about pagination behavior could make it fully complete.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters ('after', 'limit', 'fields') with individual descriptions, achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is specific and unambiguous: 'List system users of the configured business' uses a clear verb ('List') and resource ('system users') with a defined scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_account_users and list_business_users by explicitly naming 'system users' as the target. The prerequisite META_BUSINESS_ID env var is also stated, adding needed context.

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 provides clear context: it lists system users for the configured business and notes the required environment variable. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined and the prerequisite is a good usage hint. Missing explicit exclusion or alternative guidance keeps it from a 5.

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