list_users

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

Annotations already communicate that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful return-context detail that IDs are included for use by other tools, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or access requirements. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the one extra fact agents need (IDs for reuse). No words are wasted.

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 parameterless list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete. It names the resource, the scope, and the key output element (IDs), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meanings to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('all users in the sipgate account'), and adds the useful detail that it returns IDs usable by other tools. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_numbers and list_devices.

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 implies a usage context: use this tool when you need user IDs for other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over account_info or other list tools, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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