get_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses sorting behavior and output fields but does not mention potential performance issues, pagination, or that it requires the chain parameter (though schema covers that). It's a read-only operation, but no safety details are given.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and sorting order. Every word adds value, with no 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?

The tool is simple with one documented parameter and no output schema. The description provides the core output fields and sorting, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks any caveats about data volume or chain-scoping, but those are minor given the simplicity.

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 description does not mention the chain parameter, but the schema fully documents it (100% coverage), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'DorkFi users' with the exact output fields (health factors, collateral, borrows, risk levels) and sorting order. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (singular) or get_health_factor.

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 for when to use this tool: to get an overview of all users with risk metrics, sorted by health factor. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as preferring get_user for a single user, so it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to siblings.

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