zabbix_consultar_usuarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait beyond the schema: credentials (passwords/tokens) are withheld from the output, which tells the agent the result is safe to relay. It says nothing about read-only guarantees, required permissions, or whether the result is paginated or complete.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The leading '87.' index prefix is noise that adds no meaning, and could be mistaken for a parameter or step number.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not owed. For a zero-param read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no annotations the description should at least confirm read-only behavior and note that results may be truncated or paginated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The parenthetical about hidden credential fields is the only relevant scoping note and it is present.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (consult registered users), which is distinguishable from the mutation-oriented user/host tools in the sibling list. However it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest relative, zabbix_consultar_funcoes_usuario, leaving the boundary between 'users' and 'user roles/functions' to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read path for user accounts.

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