List Gong Users

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the remaining burden is low. The description adds that the call returns id, name, email, and title, which is genuinely useful for a no-output-schema tool; it does not mention pagination or result limits, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and followed immediately by return shape and purpose. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what it lists, the fields returned, and why an agent would call it. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly says nothing extraneous about arguments.

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+resource ("List Gong users") and disambiguates the resource with the parenthetical "company team members." Although the siblings (list_calls, get_call_details, get_transcripts, search_calls) share a call/transcript theme, the user-centric resource is unambiguous, so an agent can route here without opening a schema.

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?

"Use to map speaker IDs in transcripts to people" gives a concrete trigger and even points at the related transcript tools, which is clear usage context. It stops short of any exclusion or explicit when-not guidance, so it doesn't reach the top band.

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