list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not restate safety. It adds return-field info but does not disclose pagination behavior or whether deactivated users are included. The added value is modest, consistent with a simple read-only list tool.

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 only. The first states purpose and return fields; the second gives usage guidance and alternatives. Every word earns its place, with no fluff 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers return fields and usage context. It lacks explicit mention of pagination mechanics, though the cursor parameter implies it, making it nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (cursor and includeAvatars have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so no higher score is warranted.

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 Gong users in the organization, specifies return fields (name, email, title, user IDs), and distinguishes from siblings like get_user and search_users by emphasizing the 'all users' scope and its role in providing IDs for search_calls filters.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool (need a Gong user ID for search_calls filters) and provides a concrete alternative for most cases (pass email directly to primaryUserEmails/participantEmails), giving clear when/why guidance.

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