get_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool returns a list of users, which implies a read-only operation, and mentions account scope. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response structure, or any access-related requirements, leaving some ambiguity for a no-annotation context.

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 short and front-loaded: the first clause states exactly what the tool returns, and the second clause gives a practical use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and a key use case, while the schema covers parameter details. Still, it lacks explicit return-value details, pagination semantics, and guidance about alternative retrieval methods, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight semantic value by linking user IDs to responsible_user_id, but it does not elaborate on client_slug, page, or limit beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retorna a lista de usuários configurados na conta.' It clearly identifies the tool as returning all account users, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_by_id, add_users, and get_roles. The added use case for finding responsible_user_id further clarifies its purpose.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is useful: to find IDs of lead responsible users. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives such as get_user_by_id for a single user, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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