users_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search fields but omits details like return format, case sensitivity, partial matching, or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a mutation-absence tool.

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, concise sentence (10 words) that conveys the essential information without any redundant or unnecessary text.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks information about the return type (e.g., array of user objects) and potential limitations (e.g., pagination, exact vs. partial match), which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 only describes the parameter as 'Search term (required)'. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the search matches 'username, name, or email', which clarifies the parameter's scope beyond the schema.

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 (search) and resource (users), and specifies the searchable fields (username, name, email). It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle different entities or operations.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description (searching for users) but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives or when not to use it. No siblings serve the same purpose, so confusion is minimal.

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