search_members

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the query parameter (email or name) and gives no details about search semantics (e.g., case sensitivity, partial matching), result format, pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Search') and resource ('members'), with scope and criteria appended. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema or annotations, the description conveys the core function but omits important contextual details such as how results are returned, whether there are pagination/limit constraints, and how it differs from listing all members. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to discover at runtime.

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 input schema fully describes the 'query' parameter with 'Search query (email or name)', and the description does not add any additional meaning beyond that. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies, but no extra value is contributed.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a resource ('members'), and a scope ('across all audiences'), with search criteria ('by email or name'). This uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like list_members (list) and get_member (retrieve by ID), giving it a distinct purpose.

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 phrase 'across all audiences' implies this tool is for global member search, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_members or get_member, nor does it state when to prefer this over alternatives. The usage context is clear but exclusions and alternative recommendations are absent.

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