get_high_risk_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about ordering of results, pagination behavior, what a 'risk score' measures, or any permission/auth requirements for viewing risk data.

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; the key qualifier ('high risk scores') comes early. It's efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps rather than being wasteful.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully described params and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It stops short of explaining return shape/ordering or what defines risk, which an agent would still need to interpret results.

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 both limit and minRiskScore are fully documented with defaults and ranges in the schema. The description only loosely echoes the threshold concept ('high risk scores') without adding syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Get list of users') plus the qualifying attribute ('high risk scores') and the intent ('for review'). It's unambiguous what the tool returns, though it doesn't distinguish itself from nearby profile-oriented siblings like get_user_profile.

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?

'for review' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_user_profile or when not to call it. The selection criteria (risk threshold) are implied rather than stated.

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