admin_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the auth requirement (SUPER_ADMIN) and the return contents (account details, verification status, role, last login, org memberships). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, whether results are sorted/deterministic, or what happens without admin privileges. For a list/hidden tool with no annotations, this is adequate but missing some edge-case behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds the auth gate and return-value summary. Front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds distinct value.

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 paginated list tool with 5 well-documented parameters (100% schema coverage) and a clear return summary, the description covers the essentials well. No output schema exists, so the description's reference to specific return fields (role, last login, verification status, org memberships) is genuinely useful. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify default pagination behavior beyond what schema defaults imply, but that's adequately covered by the schema.

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 all 5 parameters (page, limit, role, status, search) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides — it doesn't elaborate on, say, the exact status enum values or how search interacts with other filters. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states this lists all users on the platform with pagination and filtering, and specifies it's admin-restricted (SUPER_ADMIN only). It names 'admin_users' explicitly and distinguishes it from member-focused tools like members_list by indicating it's a platform-wide admin listing rather than organization-specific.

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 the key usage context — SUPER_ADMIN only — and indicates it returns paginated/filtered user data. While it doesn't name alternative tools explicitly, the SUPER_ADMIN restriction and platform-wide scope clearly separate it from members_list, invitations_list, and auth_me among siblings. It doesn't state when NOT to use it, but the admin-only gate is a helpful constraint.

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