List mobile users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral detail: the list is never paged, user groups are resolved by name from GET /api/usergroups, and contact details are redacted unless include_contact_details is set.

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?

Three dense sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Minor overlap between the description's contact-detail clause and the schema's own explanation keeps it from a 5.

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 carries the return-shape burden and lists the fields returned plus the no-paging caveat, which is adequate for a read-only list tool. It stops short of describing ordering or size limits of that whole-list response.

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 schema parameter descriptions are already detailed (including the redaction behavior and the bank/card exclusion). The description only lightly restates include_contact_details behavior, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Mobile (field) users visible to the API user'), pins it to an endpoint (GET /api/mobileusers), and enumerates the returned fields (names, job titles, user group, active flag). It is unmistakably distinct from the job/form/approval listing siblings.

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?

It gives clear context ('visible to the API user') and notes the no-paging behavior, but never states when to reach for this tool versus another or any prerequisite. No sibling competes directly, so the omission is mild rather than harmful.

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