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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the per-page billing detail, which is useful and not present in the schema's exact form, and 'Search' implies a read operation. However, it does not describe response contents, pagination limits beyond the schema, or any side effects or rate-limit considerations.

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 two short sentences with the core action first and the cost signal second. There is no redundant or filler language; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity and its schema covers parameters well, but there is no output schema or annotation, and the description does not explain what a returned page of users contains or how this differs from the generic search_bluesky tool. It is sufficient for invoking correctly but lacks full operational context.

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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including default, max length, page size, and billing per page. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the search is by keyword.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search Bluesky users') and clearly identifies the target as user accounts rather than posts or profiles. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it replaces, but the platform/resource scope is enough to avoid most ambiguity.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of similar siblings such as search_bluesky, bluesky_user_profile, or search_twitter_users. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or distinguishing use cases beyond what the name already implies.

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