get_users_segment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that auth is injected server-side, calls are throttled and retried, results are paginated at 20 per page, and non-2xx responses surface as tool errors with specific status interpretations. This meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding of runtime behavior.

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 well structured with clear headings (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loads the essential facts: read-only, HTTP endpoint, and core behavior. Every section earns its place, covering safety, pagination, auth, errors, and usage without padding.

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 list tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the endpoint, result semantics, pagination, authentication, throttling, error handling, and intended use cases. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the segment_id selects the segment and that pagination should be walked using the `page` parameter, reinforcing the schema's 'Filter by page number' with usage intent.

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 and resource: 'Get all users by segment' via GET /v2/users/by-segment. It clearly identifies the input (segment id), the result set (all users in that segment), and the ordering/pagination behavior, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_users or get_user_segments.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting.' It also says when not to use it: 'Not for changing anything — use the matching 🟡 write tool,' and lists related Users tools for context, giving an agent clear routing guidance.

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