list-users

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only/idempotent, so the extra detail about pagination, scope, and filter support is useful. However, the claim that it supports 'advanced $search' has no corresponding input parameter in the schema, making part of the behavioral description misleading.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the scope is front-loaded, pagination is compressed, and OData support is stated. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope and pagination well and relies on the complete schema for parameter format. It loses points because it promises a $search capability that the schema cannot express, leaving an agent unsure how to invoke it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a relevant filter example ('accountEnabled eq false') and explaining cursor continuation, which enriches the otherwise generic schema descriptions. The unsupported $search mention slightly reduces the add-on value.

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?

Opens with 'List ALL users of the organization', giving a specific verb and resource and scoping to include disabled accounts and guests. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-user and search-users.

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 it (need every user, including disabled/guests) and gives pagination and filtering guidance, but never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. It is clear context without explicit when-not guidance.

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