List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral traits such as cursor-based pagination and the supported filter fields. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the safety hints.

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, efficient sentence, front-loaded with the HTTP method and resource, and lists key capabilities without any filler. Every word 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?

Given full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's purpose, pagination, and filters. However, with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the response shape (e.g., paginated list with cursors), which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes several filter parameters (email, external ID, role, search, ordering) but does not add syntax or semantics beyond the schema. Other params (limit, cursor, available_first) are only covered by the schema.

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 'GET /api/users — List users' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates filtering and pagination capabilities, distinguishing it from user mutation tools and other list tools.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool (whenever listing users with filters/pagination) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_user for single-user retrieval. It provides clear context without exclusions.

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