users_stream

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses only that pagination is cursor-based, but does not mention response shape, limits, rate handling, or any side effects. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name and does not reveal behavior beyond what the name implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential action, pagination method, and filter list with no wasted words. It is easy to scan and understand.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not clarify what the agent can expect in response (e.g., user objects, page metadata). It adequately describes input filters but omits output details. For a streaming endpoint, return format is a notable gap. Thus incomplete but not critically so given parameter clarity.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description lists the filters but without adding new meaning. It repeats names rather than explaining semantics (e.g., how filters combine). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Stream users with cursor pagination and filters' clearly states the verb (stream), resource (users), and mechanism (cursor pagination) plus enumerates filter dimensions. It is specific but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling users_list, which might offer a simpler non-streaming list.

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 vs alternatives like users_list. It does not mention prerequisites, performance trade-offs, or when a non-streaming approach would be preferable. The agent is left to infer the use case.

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