search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool searches by name/username and gives examples; it does not explain matching behavior, result limits, pagination, required permissions, or what the response contains. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral assumptions to the agent.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The action, resource, searchable fields, and use cases are all front-loaded and every word contributes to 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 simple single-parameter search tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains what to pass and why. The main gap is that without an output schema it does not describe the result shape, but for a straightforward user search this is a minor omission.

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 covers 100% of parameters but only describes 'term' as 'Search term'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the term matches name or username, which is more informative than the bare schema. For a single-parameter tool this is sufficient.

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') on a specific resource ('users') with clear search fields ('by name/username'). This distinguishes it from profile-retrieval siblings like get_user_profile, which fetch a known user rather than resolving an unknown one.

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 examples 'to resolve @mentions or PM recipients' give concrete contexts where this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling tools.

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