x_api_search_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only risk, required OAuth scopes/token types, environment-selection behavior for tenant/account scopes, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. It does not detail pagination behavior, but overall it is thorough.

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 long but well-structured into labeled sections. The 'Use when: Search Users' line is redundant and wastes space, yet the rest of the content is information-dense and organized, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides essential context: expected response shape, common failures, required permissions, environment selection, and a usage example. It lacks explicit pagination instructions but covers most operational needs.

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 add meaning for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey by explaining their role in auth resolution. However, core parameters like query, max_results, and next_token are merely restated with types/constraints from the schema, with no semantic explanation of their meaning or usage.

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 'Search Users', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like x_api_get_users_by_username, but the verb 'search' sufficiently distinguishes it from direct user lookups.

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 includes a 'Do not use when' clause with alternatives for exploration (x_schema_discovery, x_query_suggestion) and recommended prerequisite/follow-up tools. However, the 'Use when' condition is an unhelpful tautology ('Search Users'), providing no real guidance on when this tool should be chosen over similar search or user-related tools.

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