list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the description is not the sole source of behavioral information. It adds the team-scoping context but says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or default limits that annotations don't cover.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero waste that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient, though not maximally informative given the tool's filtering capabilities.

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?

For a tool with four filtering parameters and no output schema, the description omits any mention of filtering by roles/username or pagination, which are the tool's main functional choices. The readOnly/openWorld annotations carry the safety profile, but the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 schema already documents limit, roles, username, and auto_paginate in detail. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is appropriate at a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (users) scoped to the App Store Connect team, so the agent can tell it apart from get_app/list_apps. It does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar list_user_invitations or invite_user siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_user_invitations. Usage is only implied by the word 'List.'

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