users_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only reveals that extended switches to /api/search/users-extended, but does not disclose what extended changes, how results behave, or whether any side effects or permissions are involved. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not stated.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief parameter breakdown. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter search tool, though the extended parameter explanation is terse.

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 description provides enough to call the tool with q and extended, and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented. However, it lacks guidance on when extended should be used and how this search differs from sibling listing/existence tools, leaving a moderate completeness gap.

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 adds useful semantics for q by specifying accepted query forms (username/domain/email fragment). For extended, it only mentions the endpoint switch, not the behavioral difference, which leaves a partial semantic gap.

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 identifies the operation as searching users via the New API, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like users_list or users_exists, but the action 'Search users' is distinct enough for basic identification.

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 such as users_list, users_list_all, or users_exists. The q argument hints at use cases (searching by username/domain/email fragment), but there is no explicit contextual or alternative-based guidance.

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