get_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: read-only behavior, a cost signal (single API call), and the fact that the payload is personal data. It stops short of stating required permissions or result volume/pagination behavior, which are the remaining unknowns for a read 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?

A single compact sentence plus two short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields. Every clause earns its place; no filler 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 parameterless read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields. It is nearly complete, missing only permission requirements and any indication of result size or pacing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing further the description could add about inputs, and it does not attempt to invent or misdescribe any.

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 specific verb and resource ('Liste les membres du club') and enumerates exactly what each record contains (nom, email, téléphone, rôles, dernière visite). This clearly separates it from sibling read tools like get_roles and the mutation tools create_user/update_user/delete_user.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to prefer get_users over get_roles or get_signups, nor whether it needs any scope or permission to run; usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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