okta_list_users

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

Discloses support for q, search, filter, pagination, and a limit up to 200, which adds behavioral info beyond the schema. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits details like read-only implication, pagination mechanics, or response format.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List Okta users') and then lists key features. No extraneous words.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not cover return value structure, default behavior when no parameters are given, error conditions, or pagination details, 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by naming the supported query mechanisms (q, search, filter, pagination) and specifying a max limit of 200. Still, it does not explain individual parameter formats or the 'after' cursor.

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?

Clearly states 'List Okta users' as the verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like okta_get_user (single user) and okta_list_applications (different resource).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., okta_get_user for a specific user, or other list tools). Agent is left without context for selection.

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