access_management.get_users_all

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: group memberships are unfiltered, 'Everyone' is included, ROLE_NAME contains the raw Sisense value while ROLE_DISPLAY_NAME is UI-facing, and it documents version 2.0 changes affecting field semantics. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides meaningful caveats and version-change context. It is longer than strictly necessary, and the upgrade-history detail could arguably live only in the referenced doc, but the structure is logical and each section earns its place for interpretation.

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 present, the description properly explains the return shape, lists the key fields, and clarifies important edge cases like the 'Everyone' group and raw ROLE_NAME values. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses on return value semantics instead, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Retrieve every user, one canonical user row each.' It clearly distinguishes this from single-user or group-related tools by emphasizing 'every user' and 'canonical user row.'

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 implies when to use this tool by highlighting 'every user' and unfiltered data, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like access_management_get_user or access_management_get_my_user, nor does it state when not to use it. The usage context is present but left to inference.

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