search_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search for users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a successful search. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context for a search tool with 5 parameters.

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 extremely concise with just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for completeness, it achieves perfect conciseness for what it does cover.

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 (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, authentication requirements, or parameter usage. For a search tool with multiple configuration options, this minimal description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 provides no parameter information. The description doesn't mention any parameters, their purposes, or how they affect the search. For a tool with 5 parameters including a required query parameter and multiple enums, this is a significant gap in documentation.

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 'Search for users on GitHub' clearly states the action (search) and resource (users on GitHub), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling search tools like search_code, search_issues, and search_repositories. It specifies the platform (GitHub) which is helpful context.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this search is appropriate compared to other user-related operations or other search tools on the server. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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