list_users_with_weak_authentication

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context ('com evidência técnica'), indicating that output includes technical evidence, but it does not disclose filtering behavior, ordering, pagination, or what counts as evidence.

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 a single, compact, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core resource, the specific weak methods, and the output characteristic, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'evidência técnica' looks like, how the limit parameter affects results, or what including MFA-registered users means, leaving important context for correct invocation missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'limit' and 'include_mfa_registered' are present in the schema but receive no semantic explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clear verb and resource: it lists users with weak registered authentication methods, specifically naming sms/voice/email/password, and mentions technical evidence. It is unambiguous about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related siblings such as list_users_without_mfa or get_user_authentication_methods.

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 intended use case is implied by the description: finding users with weak registered auth methods. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over closely related siblings such as list_users_without_mfa or assess_privileged_mfa, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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