Search User

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that the implementation differs by platform: CQL on Cloud versus group member API on Server/DC. This is useful for setting expectations about query syntax and the role of group_name, going beyond what the annotation alone provides.

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 a single clear sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds the key platform-dependent detail in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 is a straightforward read-only user search with three documented parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation. The description supplies the only missing contextual piece — the platform-specific search mechanism — making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, defaults, and constraints. The tool description itself does not add further parameter details, but the query parameter schema includes CQL examples and quoting guidance. This fits the baseline of 3 where the schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 ('Search Confluence users') and distinguishes the resource (users) from other Confluence search tools like confluence_search. It also names the two underlying mechanisms, CQL on Cloud and group member API on Server/DC, which leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context on when the tool is appropriate: it searches users, not content, and it explicitly adapts behavior based on Cloud vs Server/DC deployment. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the user-specific scope is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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