search_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile and incomplete-result behavior. The description adds the filtering-by-IDs-or-creation-date capability but does not disclose additional behavioral specifics like pagination mechanics or response format. Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and includes a comparative clause for differentiation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys its core purpose and use case, and the annotations cover safety and open-world behavior. It does not explicitly mention pagination, but openWorldHint already signals that. The description is complete enough for most scenarios, though adding a note about pagination would make it fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions 'IDs or creation date' which loosely maps to the userIds and createdFrom/ToDateTime params, but it does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is warranted.

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's function: 'Search and filter users by IDs or creation date.' It also differentiates from the sibling tool list_users by noting it is 'More flexible than list_users for resolving specific user IDs from call data,' which provides a specific and distinct purpose.

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 explicitly names an alternative (list_users) and specifies when this tool is preferable: for resolving specific user IDs from call data. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus list_users, fulfilling the 'when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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