Search Members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic operation and does not disclose behavior such as partial vs. exact matching, case sensitivity, pagination, default or maximum result counts, whether boardId and organizationId can be combined, or what happens when no results are found.

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, compact sentence with no filler words or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it is also somewhat underspecified in terms of behavioral detail.

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 search tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. An agent would not know what the response looks like, how results are ordered, whether the search is fuzzy, or how the optional board/organization filters affect behavior. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides; the query field's parenthetical '(name, username, or email)' already appears in the 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search for Trello members' and specifies the search dimensions (name, username, or email). It is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related member lookup tools like get_member, get_board_members, or get_organization_members.

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: use this when you need to find Trello members by matching name, username, or email. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like search, get_member, get_board_members, or get_organization_members, and it does not mention any exclusions or conditions.

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