edubase_get_user_search

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true) already signal safety. The description adds clarity on searchable fields (email, username, code) beyond annotations, but does not detail behavior like partial matches, case sensitivity, or handling of multiple results.

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 succinct sentence that delivers the essential purpose without extraneous words. 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks details on search semantics (e.g., exact vs. partial match, handling of multiple or zero results) and does not leverage the openWorldHint annotation nor confirm if it returns a single user or list.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'query'. The description adds meaning by specifying that the query can be an email, username, or code, which is not present in the schema description ('query string'). This compensates for the minimal schema description.

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 'Lookup user by email, username or code', specifying the verb (Lookup), resource (user), and search fields. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like edubase_get_user or edubase_get_user_name, though the search-oriented phrasing implies difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., edubase_get_user for exact ID lookup, edubase_get_users for listing). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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