list_all_owned_enabled_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List all owned & enabled user(s)') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral 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 extremely concise at just 5 words, which is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness - while there's no wasted language, the description is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. For a tool that presumably queries user data (which could involve permissions, filtering logic, and result formatting), the description should provide more context about what 'owned' means, what 'enabled' means, and how results are returned.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'domain' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter whatsoever - it doesn't mention the parameter exists, what it represents, or what format it expects. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 'List all owned & enabled user(s)' states the basic action (list) and target (owned & enabled users), which provides a vague purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'owned' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_owned_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users', making it unclear how this differs from those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that list users with various filters (e.g., 'list_all_owned_users', 'list_all_enabled_users', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email'), there's no indication of when this specific combination of 'owned' and 'enabled' is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other listing tools.

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