list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and discloses return fields and pagination behavior via token. While it does not mention authentication or rate limits, for a simple list tool this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'List all users', and contains no wasted words. It efficiently conveys purpose, return values, and pagination support.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies scope ('all users in the account'), mentions the key return fields, and covers pagination. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 schema fully describes both parameters (limit with min/max, token with its purpose). The description's mention of 'pagination via token' aligns with the schema's existing 'Pagination token from previous response' but does not add new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no significant value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'users' and scopes it to 'the account', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_roles and list_fields. It immediately conveys what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when needing to list all users in an account) and supports this with pagination details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling tools target different resources, no competing tool exists for listing users, making the usage guidance clear enough.

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