search_user

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. It only describes the search functionality without mentioning important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, result format, pagination, case sensitivity, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about partial email matching.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (user objects, IDs, limited fields), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The context signals show this is a simple single-parameter tool, but the description should still address basic behavioral expectations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'email' parameter completely. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that both exact and partial email matching is supported, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 purpose as searching for users using email criteria. It specifies both exact email and partial email matching, which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling search tools (though none exist in the provided list).

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention whether this is the primary user lookup method, when to use it versus get_user_profile/get_user_profiles, or any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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