List monday.com users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds use-case context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination limits, default filtering behavior, or how 'all_pages' affects results. It provides some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded with the main action, no redundant phrasing. The use case sentence is concise and valuable.

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?

The tool is a straightforward list operation with all parameter details fully in the schema. The description's use-case hint (mapping names to IDs) helps the agent understand the return value's purpose. No output schema exists, but for a simple list tool the description is adequate. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema's 'all_pages' parameter covers that.

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 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including defaults and meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' with a clear resource 'people in the account', and adds a concrete use case (turning a name into a numeric user ID for people columns). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on workspaces, boards, items, etc.

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 a specific scenario ('Use it to turn a name into the numeric user id that a people column needs'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tools are all for different resources, so ambiguity is low. Slight deduction for lacking explicit exclusions.

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