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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by page/per_page parameters but not explained), what fields are returned, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 at just 4 words, front-loading the essential information. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 5 parameters (including complex enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret parameters, or provide any context about GitHub's search API behavior. The minimal description is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters (including 2 with enums), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'q' represents (search query format), what the sort options mean, or how pagination works. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb 'search' and resource 'users on GitHub', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling search tools like 'search_code', 'search_issues', or 'search_repositories' beyond specifying the user resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this search is appropriate versus other user-related operations, nor does it reference the sibling search tools for different resource types.

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