github_search_users

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the supported qualifiers and default sort order, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a simple search tool this is acceptable but not exhaustive, hence a mid-range score.

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 succinct and well-structured: a one-line summary, a qualifier explanation, and a compact Args section. Every sentence contributes value, and the formatting improves scannability without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, query syntax, and parameters. It does not address edge cases like pagination or error handling, but for a straightforward search tool, it is reasonably complete. The absence of prerequisites like session setup is a minor gap, shared with sibling tools.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' block fills that gap by explaining each parameter's purpose, default values, and examples. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema, earning a score above baseline.

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 action (search) and resource (GitHub users and organizations). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like github_search_repos, github_search_code, and github_search_issues by specifying the target. The mention of qualifiers like type:user and type:org further clarifies the scope.

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 for when to use this tool: to search for users or organizations. It includes specific query examples (type:org language:python) that illustrate usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative search tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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