list_users

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate read-only and open-world operations, the description specifies that this is an 'admin action,' discloses authentication requirements ('Requires Application API key'), and mentions pagination support. It doesn't contradict the readOnlyHint=true annotation since listing is a read operation.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's purpose, specifying return fields, providing usage guidance, and disclosing behavioral requirements. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only listing tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides excellent contextual information. It covers purpose, usage guidance, authentication requirements, and output format details. The only minor gap is the lack of an output schema, but the description compensates by specifying what fields are returned.

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 fully documents both parameters (page and per_page) with their descriptions, types, and constraints. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without adding extra value.

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 action ('List all user accounts'), specifies the resource ('registered on the panel'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning it's an 'admin action' and listing specific return fields. It explicitly differentiates from other user-related tools like 'create_user' or 'update_user' by focusing on listing rather than modifying.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use to find user IDs needed for create_server (owner) or update_server_details.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires Application API key' and 'admin action,' giving clear context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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