MCP YAML API

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

Annotations cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, but the description adds useful context about pagination behavior. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides operational detail beyond them, though it could mention more about response format or limitations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's moderate complexity (pagination, 2 params), no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, response format, or sibling differentiation, leaving gaps for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 2 parameters, the description only mentions 'pagination' generically without explaining 'page' and 'limit' parameters. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving parameter meaning unclear beyond the basic hint.

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 action ('retrieve a list of users') and resource ('users'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'getUsers' (which likely retrieves users without pagination parameters), missing full differentiation.

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 usage for paginated retrieval, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'getUsers' or other siblings. It provides some context (pagination) but lacks clear alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidelines incomplete.

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