list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning user details, but lacks behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the cursor parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose key operational aspects.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core function in the first sentence and adding return details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return format, pagination behavior, error cases, and usage context. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be fully helpful.

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%, with the cursor parameter documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how pagination works or default behaviors. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Gong users in your workspace'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_calls' by focusing on users rather than calls, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_call_details' or 'search_calls'. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.

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