List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safe read nature of the operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it does not discuss pagination, sorting, or response shape, but it does imply the response contains user IDs. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, though more could be said about what the list returns.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides actionable guidance on using the output. No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.

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 simple list operation with one optional param and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it and interpret the purpose correctly. It explains the output's usage, but does not specify whether the list is paginated or the exact return structure. Given the low complexity and annotation hints, this is nearly complete, but a note on response format would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 single parameter locationId is fully documented in the schema with its type, description, and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond reinforcing that users are scoped by location. Since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool lists users (team members) within a location, and distinguishes itself from the single-user sibling ghl_get_user by the explicit 'list' scope and the mention of 'in a location'. The purpose is specific and unambiguous, though it does not name the alternative tool directly.

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 tells the agent how to use the returned IDs (for assignedTo/assignedUserId fields) and implies the tool is appropriate when a listing of users is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ghl_get_user or provide conditions for when to prefer this tool over alternatives, leaving the selection to inference.

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