List Users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: default query of active users only, pagination via limit/offset, response_format choices, and the specific return fields (name, username, email, department, manager). This goes beyond the annotations with no contradictions.

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 well-organized and concise: a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clear Args section and a Common queries section with examples, then a Returns line. Every element serves a purpose, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: purpose, input parameters, query examples, pagination, output format, and return fields. It supplies sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without missing critical information.

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 the baseline is 3. The description significantly adds meaning by explaining the query parameter with concrete examples ('nameLIKEjohn', 'department.name=Information Technology') and listing common queries, plus clarifying limit/offset as pagination and response_format as output format. This is far more helpful than the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool 'List and search ServiceNow users', which is a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like servicenow_get_user (which fetches a single user) and servicenow_query_records (generic query). The name and title reinforce the plural list/search intent.

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 provides clear context for use by giving common query examples (active users, name search, department, role) and noting default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative tool (e.g., for a single user, use get_user) or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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