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. It only says 'get list', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination, sorting, active/inactive user filtering, required permissions, or the response shape. This lack of behavioral detail makes it hard for an agent to anticipate side effects or output variations.

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?

A single short sentence conveys the operation and resource with no filler. It is completely front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter list tool.

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-by-company tool, the core information is present: what it does and the required parameter. However, with no output schema and no behavioral notes, the agent lacks information about the response format or any list limitations (e.g., pagination). It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 company_id is already documented as '事業所ID'. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully handles parameter semantics.

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 '事業所のユーザー一覧を取得' clearly states the action (get list) and resource (users of a business office). It differentiates from sibling tools like list_partners or list_account_items because no other sibling targets users. It does not explain what 'user' means or whether the list is scoped beyond company_id, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. However, the wording 'ユーザー一覧を取得' implies this is the tool to use when a list of users for a business office is needed. Since the sibling list shows no other user-listing tool, the usage context is inferable, but it is not explicitly stated.

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