list_all_users_with_description_field

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 at a surface level without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 6 words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's 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?

For a tool with 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter, doesn't differentiate from alternatives, doesn't describe behavior, and doesn't provide any context about what 'description field' means or what the output looks like. This leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. The description doesn't explain what domain means, what format it expects, or provide any context about this required parameter. With no schema descriptions and no parameter information in the description, this leaves the agent guessing about how to use the tool correctly.

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 user(s) with description field' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'user(s)', but lacks specificity about what 'description field' means or how this differs from other user-listing tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users_with_email'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but fails to distinguish from siblings.

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 focused on users (e.g., 'list_enabled_users', 'list_all_enabled_users_with_email', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users'), there is no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The description is completely silent on usage context.

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