search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'FREE' and 'Undocumented endpoint,' which hints at possible instability but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without 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 concise at 4 sentences and includes essential information upfront. It is well-structured but lacks bullet points or clear separation of details; however, it remains efficient and easy to read.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It explains the output (user IDs, names, emails) and the need for user IDs, but omits pagination behavior, the meaning of 'Undocumented endpoint,' and potential issues. This leaves gaps for an agent using the tool.

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 33% with only q_keywords described in the schema. The description adds context about searching users and return fields but does not explain page or per_page parameters. It partially compensates for low schema coverage but not enough to provide complete parameter understanding.

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 it searches for team members/users in the Apollo workspace, returns user IDs, names, and emails, and explains the importance of user IDs for assigning tasks, deals, and contacts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_people and search_contacts.

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 does not provide when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'FREE' and 'Undocumented endpoint' but offers no guidance on context or exclusions. With many sibling search tools, explicit differentiation is missing.

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