search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, whether it requires admin scopes, whether it searches across all users or only visible ones, or any result limits beyond max_results. 'Search' implies a safe read but that is never stated.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with the parameter list after it. It is appropriately short for a two-parameter lookup, though the 'Args:' block adds little beyond the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple two-parameter tool. Still, with zero annotation coverage and no usage context, the definition leaves an agent without enough to decide when this tool is the right call.

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; it does describe both parameters (query accepts name/email/display name, max_results defaults to 25). However, this only restates what the schema already conveys via types and defaults, adding no syntax, matching-behavior, or pagination detail beyond it.

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 specific verb and resource ('Search for Jira users') and narrows the matching fields to name or email, which clearly separates it from siblings like search_issues or get_current_user. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling it substitutes for.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_current_user (which likely returns the authenticated user) or a project-member lookup. The only guidance is implicit in the field list, so an agent must infer the selection criteria itself.

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