get_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral context of returning all users and supporting optional filtering and pagination, but it does not disclose details such as default ordering, response shape, or pagination limits beyond what the schema already provides. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all users') and summarizes the key capabilities. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but leaves out some operational details, such as how the filter object is structured, what fields are sortable, and how search behaves. The schema covers parameter names but not richer semantic context. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for confident invocation in all scenarios.

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 each parameter has a basic description such as 'Sort fields' and 'Number of users to return (default: 25)'. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already supplies. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all users', which clearly identifies a listing operation. It also distinguishes itself from the singular sibling get_user by explicitly stating 'all users'. The mention of optional filtering and pagination further sharpens the scope.

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 implies this tool is the appropriate choice for retrieving multiple users, especially with filter/pagination needs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use get_users versus get_user, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. Usage context is only implied, not directly stated.

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