get_users_segment

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds behavioral details: users are sorted by most recent first and paginated with a limit of 20 per page. This adds value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: three sentences including an emoji and API path. It front-loads the read-only indicator and provides all necessary information without fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (sorted, paginated, 20 per page). It covers pagination behavior and sorting order. Missing details on user fields but acceptable for a retrieval tool with good annotations.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters (page and segment_id). The description mentions 'provided segment id' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it retrieves all users by segment with sorting and pagination details. The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'users in the segment' are specific, and the tool name aligns perfectly with the function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_users by its segment filter.

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 segment-based user retrieval but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_users (which fetches all users) or other segment-related tools. No guidance on when not to use is provided.

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