get_user_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that filtering, sorting, pagination and relation inclusion are supported, but says nothing about pagination defaults, result caps, or auth scope that the annotations don't already imply.

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?

'Get all users. Retrieve all users.' is a pure restatement that consumes the front-loaded position without adding information, though the remaining two sentences are tight and informative. The opening redundancy is the main structural flaw.

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 read-only collection endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the four meaningful behaviors an agent needs (filter, sort, paginate, expand relations), and the annotations carry the safety profile. Return-value detail is not required since the schema and annotations cover the rest.

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 on the top-level parameter is 0% (the nested 'query' object carries the documentation), so the description does usefully name filters, sorting, pagination and relations as capabilities. However, it calls the relation field 'the relations parameter' while the schema names it 'with', a naming mismatch that could send an agent looking for the wrong key.

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 and resource ('Get all users', 'Retrieve all users') and makes clear this returns a collection rather than a single record. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_user or my_account, so an agent learns the resource but not why it should pick this over the single-user tool.

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?

'Apply custom filters, sorting, and pagination to find the users you need' implies the intended use case of a filtered list query, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_user or a named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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