list_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. 'List users' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it is), what format the results take, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description provides essentially no behavioral context.

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 two words, which could be considered appropriately sized for such a simple concept. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than truly efficient. There's no wasted language, but also no helpful information beyond the absolute minimum.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about this listing operation. A simple 'List users' doesn't explain what information is returned about users, whether there are filtering options, how results are structured, or any limitations. For a tool with pagination parameters and multiple sibling list operations, this description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents both parameters (page and limit) with their types, defaults, and basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate for schema gaps because there are none, but it also doesn't add value beyond the structured data.

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 users' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'users', but lacks any distinguishing details about scope, format, or context that would differentiate it from generic list operations. Compared to sibling tools like 'list_products' or 'list_sales', this description provides no indication of what makes listing users unique.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or relationships to sibling tools. With multiple list operations available (list_users, list_products, list_sales, list_subscriptions), the description fails to help an agent understand when user listing is appropriate versus other listing operations.

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