List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful visibility constraint ('visible to you'), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or how the limit interacts with the filters.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose and use-case front-loaded, filtering capability last. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description is silent on what a returned user record contains (name, email, id fields) and on pagination behavior. Everything else an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is present, so the gap is minor.

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%, so limit, project_id and organization_id are already documented in the schema, including the default and maximum. The description's mention of organization/project filtering adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Redbooth users') plus a scope qualifier ('visible to you'), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it is distinct from (list_organizations, list_projects, get_me), but the resource noun is unambiguous.

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?

'Use this to find user IDs for assigning tasks' gives a concrete motivating scenario, which most definitions lack. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach the explicit when/when-not bar.

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