edubase_get_user_search

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the search criteria but no additional behavioral details such as handling of not found or multiple matches. Given the annotations, the description adds limited value beyond the annotations.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 does not address potential limitations like result count, pagination, or scope of search. It also does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edubase_get_user or edubase_get_users, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this search.

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 has one parameter with description 'query string' (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by specifying that the query can be an email, username, or code, which is a significant enhancement over the schema's generic 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 the verb 'Lookup' and the resource 'user', specifying the search fields: email, username, or code. This distinguishes it from other user-related tools like edubase_get_user and edubase_get_users by focusing on search by these identifiers.

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 implies usage when you have an email, username, or code, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it differs from siblings. There is no mention of alternatives like edubase_get_user (for exact ID lookup) or edubase_get_users (for listing all users).

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