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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination defaults, how filters combine, whether `include` expands nested payloads, or result volume for a live-account listing.

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?

It is short, but two words is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of scope or filtering capability to anchor the call.

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 10-parameter, paginated, filterable list endpoint, this is inadequate. Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the agent still cannot tell how filtering or pagination behave or when to prefer a sibling lookup tool.

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 only 20% across 10 parameters, and 6 of them (page_size, page_number, filter_email, filter_search, and the several created_at bounds) carry no schema description at all. The description supplies zero parameter meaning, leaving the agent to guess formats and filter semantics.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (get_user for a single user, get_current_user for self, get_user_email_addresses for related data), and no preconditions. The description is purely a label.

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