find_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching on email/display name and that matches are returned for UUID selection. It lacks details on no-match behavior or result limits, but given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, this is adequate.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core behavior and include a clear purpose for the return value. Every word adds value with no redundant detail.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for agent invocation. It explains what the tool searches, how it matches, and why the result is useful.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that `query` is matched case-insensitively against email or display name. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter name.

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 verb 'Find' targeting members, with specific criteria 'email or display name contains query (case-insensitive)'. This distinguishes it from list_members and other sibling tools, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the use case: find a member by searching email/display name and retrieve the correct UUID. It does not explicitly compare with list_members or state when not to use, but the intended context is clear and sufficient for an agent.

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