Search for users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context by implying that the search results do not include numeric IDs, hence the need to pair with get_follows. This is a useful limitation that goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or match semantics.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives a practical workflow hint. No redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (find users by name) and provides a completion step (get_follows for numeric IDs). It lacks explicit output format details, but given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'query' is a user's name, adding semantic meaning beyond the generic parameter name. However, it lacks details about matching behavior (partial/exact), case sensitivity, or any example, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find Backloggd users by name.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_games and other user-related tools. It also adds a workflow hint (pairing with get_follows) that reinforces the purpose of returning user name matches.

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 recommends pairing with get_follows to obtain numeric IDs, which provides clear context for a common workflow. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the user-name focus and sibling context make the appropriate usage evident.

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