search_users

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint, and the description adds the return envelope {items, total_count}, which is likely already captured by the output schema. It does not disclose matching behavior, pagination semantics, sorting, rate limits, or whether user identity/email fields are included.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The action, target resource, and return shape are all included without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and an output schema, this is nearly adequate. However, it lacks any usage guidance, query syntax details, or notes on result limits, so an agent may not know when or how effectively to invoke it compared with sibling search tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only paraphrases q as 'matching' and provides no detail on how the query is interpreted or how limit behaves. The schema already shows the default for limit, so the description adds minimal parameter meaning.

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 ('Search') and resource ('users') with the matching query variable q. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_repos tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_repos or list_org_members. The resource name implies the context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing instructions.

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