bitrix_list_users

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it only restates the search-by-name/email behavior already present in the schema. It does not mention that this is a read-only list operation, how activeOnly and limit affect results, or what happens when no search query is provided.

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 communicates the tool's resource and filtering capability with no fluff. It is concise and readable, though the phrase 'по имени, фамилии или email' partially duplicates the existing 'search' parameter description.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools (get_user, list_contacts, find_contact), the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It lacks expected return shape, alternative-selection guidance, and behavioral defaults, making it only minimally usable.

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 schema already documents 'search' and 'activeOnly', while 'limit' and 'order' are left without schema descriptions. The description does not add any meaning for limit or order, nor does it explain defaults or ordering behavior, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action: searching and listing Bitrix24 employees by name, surname, or email. The resource and filter scope are immediately apparent, and the tool is clearly distinct from task/deal/project tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like bitrix_get_user or bitrix_list_contacts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bitrix_get_user, bitrix_list_contacts, or bitrix_find_contact. The agent is left to infer the right choice from the tool name alone.

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