users_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true / destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are offset-paginated and that users have numeric ids, but says nothing about ordering, return shape, or result limits beyond the schema's own max.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most useful detail (the filters example). No filler, though the id note could be folded in more economically.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers the filters path well but leaves three parameters (sorting, filterModes, globalFilterMode) entirely unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap on the TanStack filter-mode semantics.

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 coverage is low (33%): only size and start are documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by explaining the filters array shape with a concrete example, but sorting, filterModes, and globalFilterMode remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List users') with the mechanism (offset pagination + TanStack-style filters). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the users_get* family by being the list/filter entry point, but never names an alternative to sharpen the boundary.

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?

Tells the agent how to locate users by telegramId, email, tag, status via filters, which is genuine routing guidance for lookup. However it never states when to prefer this over users_get, users_resolve, or users_stream, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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