Search users

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses important behavior: emails are dropped unless includeEmail is true, masked emails surface an email_hidden hint, and pagination is one page per call with a defined continuation mechanism. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

Four focused sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover constraint behavior, privacy, and pagination. There is no filler and every sentence contributes distinct information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the essential return concept (accountId), the paging contract, and the privacy-sensitive email field. It does not enumerate every possible response field, but the openWorldHint and focused scope make the provided information sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics around privacy (email dropped by default), Cloud-specific identity (accountId instead of usernames), and the assignability restriction precedence between issue and project.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: finding Jira users by display name or email and returning their accountId. It also distinguishes the tool from other Jira tools by noting that Cloud has no usernames and that this accountId is what every other tool consumes.

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 gives clear operational guidance: use issue or project to restrict results to assignable users, issue wins when both are present, and iterate pages with startAt and paging.nextStartAt. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear enough.

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