list_users

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

annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on ordering, result size, pagination defaults, or what happens with role/username filters, all of which would be new information rather than a restatement of the annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of any scoping or alternative detail rather than being purely economical.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the essentials are covered. The absence of an output schema means return-shape information is unavailable, but a list-users result is self-evident enough that this 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 all four parameters (limit, roles, username, auto_paginate) are already fully documented, including the auto_paginate/limit interaction. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 on your App Store Connect team), so the operation is unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling list_user_invitations, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description never mentions list_user_invitations, so an agent has to infer from the name alone whether it wants existing team members or pending invitations.

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