search_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior, the two searchable fields, the limit parameter, and the return payload structure. It implies a read operation with no side effects, which is appropriate for a search 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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is not overly long, but slightly verbose for a simple search tool; however, it remains 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?

Given an output schema exists (from context signals), the description does not need to detail returns but does so anyway, aiding completeness. For a low-complexity search tool, it covers parameters, return fields, and default behavior, though it could mention sorting or case sensitivity.

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 fully describes both parameters: query as 'Search query string (name or unique_name)' and limit as 'Maximum number of results to return (default: 20)', adding meaning beyond the type definitions.

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 tool searches for users by name or unique name, specifying the verb (search) and resource (users). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_info, which likely retrieves by ID, and other search tools that target chats or messages.

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 needing to find users by name or unique_name, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_user_info. Given the number of sibling tools, more context would help.

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