List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the quota disclosure: 'Each call spends Telgea requests from the 1000/day budget shared by everyone using the key.' That is genuinely useful behavioral context an agent can't get from structured fields. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't quantify cost per page beyond what the schema 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?

Two tight sentences: the first covers scope and returned fields, the second covers filtering, and the third covers quota cost. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is up front.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it discloses the shared daily budget, which matters for a paginated tool. The main residual gap is pagination behavior (how to continue via nextPage), though the schema's page parameter covers most of 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameters are self-documenting (page, pageSize, maxPages each explain their budget cost). The description adds the exact-match semantics for email/employeeId, but that is largely a restatement of the schema's 'Exact email.' Baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organisation's users (employees)') and enumerates the returned fields (name, email, team, employee id, cost code), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling read tools (list_user_plans, list_teams) to differentiate, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 states that filtering is by exact email or exact employeeId, which implies the lookup use case, but it never says when to prefer this over siblings like telgea_list_teams or telgea_find_user_plan, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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