x_api_get_users_public_keys

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses risk (read-only), required permissions and scopes, environment-selection behavior for tenants and credentials, common failure conditions (including rate limits and auth failures), and safety warnings about sensitive data.

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 well-structured with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose, but it is somewhat verbose. The 'Use when' repeats the first sentence ('Get public keys for multiple users'), and the included example adds length without significant additional insight.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: expected response shape, common failure conditions, required permissions, environment selection, and recommended tools. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'ids (query, array, required)' and details the semantics of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are left undocumented, despite the schema containing an enum for preferredAuthType.

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 begins with 'Get public keys for multiple users,' which clearly states the action and resource scope. It is distinguished from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_public_key (singular) and x_api_add_user_public_key, and the name aligns with the description.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear usage context, noting that exploration should prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion and that specific auth/config tools may be needed first. Recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools are also listed.

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