Search identities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return fields (id, display name, unique account name, assignedToValue) and the search purpose. However, it does not explain search matching semantics (prefix/substring/exact), whether groups are included by default, or any auth requirements. No contradictions with annotations exist since there are none.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the return fields. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the only guidance. It adequately covers purpose and return shape, but the undocumented includeGroups parameter and the ambiguity around group search leave a notable gap. It is viable for basic user lookups but not fully complete for all advertised uses.

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?

The schema already documents query and filter with examples and meaning, but includeGroups appears in the schema with no description. The description adds nothing about includeGroups and does not clarify how 'users or groups' maps to that flag. With roughly 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the missing parameter, and it does not.

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 action ('Find users or groups') with the search dimensions (display name, account name, e-mail) and the concrete downstream purpose (obtain a valid assignedTo value). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_current_identity or work item/query tools.

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?

It clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever an assignedTo value is needed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_current_identity or describe when not to use it, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer the appropriate use case.

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