luceed_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses '(read)' — useful but minimal. It says nothing about pagination, result volume, required permissions, or what each action returns, which is a large gap for a six-parameter tool.

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 single line is compact and front-loads the resource and read nature, but the trailing action list duplicates the schema enum and earns little space. Efficient yet under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and cryptic action names, the description should explain what each action returns and how the partial-name parameters (dio_imena, dio_prezimena) relate to the search actions. That essential context is missing.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, and the description adds no syntax or meaning beyond echoing the action enum. Baseline 3 applies when the schema 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 identifies the resource (loyalty/web users) and marks it as a read operation, which distinguishes it from write-oriented siblings. However, the action names (listatip, listaprezime, listaime) are opaque Croatian terms that are merely restated rather than explained, so an agent cannot tell what each action actually returns.

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 use this tool versus siblings like luceed_partneri or luceed_bodovi, nor any indication of which action to pick for a given intent. The action list is a menu without conditions.

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