list_access_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies read-only behavior, but the description does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, permission requirements, or what a 'user' entry contains. There is no contradiction, just missing behavioral context.

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 with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope are front-loaded and every word 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?

For a one-parameter list endpoint this is minimally viable: the agent knows what to call and with which required input. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description omits pagination/return behavior and offers no sibling differentiation, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% and account_id is already documented as 'The account ID'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema fully covers the single parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific action (List) and resource (Access users) scoped to an account, which is unambiguous at a basic level. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby sibling tools such as list_account_members or list_access_user_active_sessions.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the schema's required account_id. Given the large sibling set of list_access_* and list_*_members tools, the agent gets no routing help.

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