list_enabled_users_with_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions listing users but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'enabled' and 'with an email address' entail operationally. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential security or data implications.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy 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?

Given the complexity (listing users in a domain with email criteria), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or operational context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'domain' means, its format, or how it filters results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'List enabled user(s) with an email address', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('enabled user(s)'), but lacks detail on scope or output format. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_enabled_users' or 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email', making it adequate but with gaps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing users (e.g., 'list_all_enabled_users', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email'), the description offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction.

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