List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — the pagination claim is already spelled out in the `all`/`limit` schema fields, and there is no mention of auth needs, default ordering, or truncation behavior.

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?

Two short fragments, front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than efficiency, and the "GET /users" prefix largely restates the name and 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?

With 9 optional parameters, 22% schema coverage, and no output schema, an agent needs the description to explain filter semantics and result shape. The description provides neither, leaving the majority of callable surface undocumented.

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 only 22%: `all` and `limit` are documented, but offset, search, deleted, group_id, company_id, location_id and department_id are bare. The description's vague "search and common filters" does not identify which filters exist or what they accept, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("GET /users: paginated list"), which is enough for an agent to know this returns a collection of users. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as snipeit_get_user or snipeit_gen_users, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Supports search and common filters" hints at capability but never says when to use this list endpoint versus snipeit_get_user, snipeit_me, or snipeit_raw_request. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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