search_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return type ('Sensr /v1/organizations/users response') and pagination params, but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or details about matching semantics (e.g., case insensitivity, partial match). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise and well-structured with a one-line purpose, a bulleted parameter list, and a return statement. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable 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?

For a search tool, the description is adequate: it covers query and pagination, and references a known response structure. However, with sibling tools like get_user_by_email and list_users, it would be more complete if it clarified the distinction (e.g., 'Use this when you don't have an exact email'). The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value detail.

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's parameter list provides essential meaning. It clarifies query is required and free-text, and gives defaults for page and limit. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could elaborate on query formatting or pagination behavior.

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 via free-text query on name/email, which is a specific and actionable purpose. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_users (which likely lists all users) and get_user_by_email (which might be exact match), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 use case is implied through 'free-text query'—the tool is for when you need to search by partial name or email. However, there is no explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling tools are better suited for exact email lookup or listing all users.

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