get_users_api_v1_users

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only, pagination support, or ordering. It provides none, leaving the agent unaware of important behavior beyond what the schema indicates.

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?

At two words, the description is overly terse and sacrifices necessary detail. It is not well-structured as it merely restates the tool name, providing no added value for an agent.

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 the tool has 4 optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is complete only for a trivial use case. It omits crucial context about parameter interactions and selection criteria, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (query, order_by, direction, page). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails entirely.

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 'Get Users' states the verb and resource but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_users_api_v1_users_all_get' or 'get_user_by_id_api_v1_users'. Without specifying scope (e.g., paginated list, filtering), the purpose remains vague.

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 versus other user-retrieval tools. The sibling list includes multiple similar tools (e.g., get_all_users, search_users), making this gap critical for an AI agent to select correctly.

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