User: List_users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description itself adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the response is filtered or complete. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes almost nothing beyond them.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its extreme brevity leaves no room for useful routing or behavioral structure.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the operation but omits sibling differentiation and any indication that filters and pagination are supported, so an agent must rely entirely on the schema and annotations for context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents filter, offset, and pageSize in detail. The description provides no additional parameter meaning or syntax, which is the baseline expectation when the 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 states a clear verb + resource: 'List all Brivo users.' It is not a tautology and an agent can tell it is a listing operation for user entities. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling user-related tools such as Get_user or Get_user_by_external_id, which caps the score below 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives. The description only implies that the tool is for listing users, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it over Get_user, Get_user_by_external_id, or List_user_groups.

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