list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions ordering ('recently created order') which is useful behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what fields are returned. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the ordering constraint. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers what the tool does and ordering, but lacks information about authentication, return format, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema for parameters and make assumptions about behavior.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (page and per_page with defaults and constraints). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), and specifies the ordering ('recently created order'). It distinguishes from other user-related tools like 'get_user' (singular) and 'list_user_followers' (relationships). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling list tools that might also return users in different contexts.

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 like 'list_user_followers', 'list_user_items', and 'get_authenticated_user', there's no indication of when this general user listing is appropriate versus more specific user-related queries. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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