list_users

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

With no annotations, the description is responsible for behavioral clarity. It states the tool returns a list of users with specific fields, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination, authentication, or other constraints, which would be helpful for complete transparency.

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 concise, with three clear sentences: purpose, return values, and usage scenarios. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description completely covers the tool's purpose, return data, and practical applications. It is self-contained and provides all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description acknowledges this by focusing on output. It adds value by explaining what the tool returns and why it's useful (for getting broker IDs). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets this.

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 'List all brokers/agents (Nutzer) in the Propstack account.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_teams by focusing on users/brokers. The return fields are enumerated, aiding understanding.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the tool: to obtain broker IDs for assigning contacts/properties, filtering searches, setting email senders, and assigning tasks/events. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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