user_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the HTTP method and that it returns events, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior (though from/size params imply it), authentication requirements, or side effects. Contradictory required-field info reduces trust.

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 very concise (one sentence) but front-loads contradictory information ('Required: q, from, size') and mixes endpoint details with purpose. It is not well-structured for an agent to quickly understand.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the body parameter, what 'events' means, how pagination works, or the relationship to sibling user-related tools like user_invitation_search. The description leaves many gaps.

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 descriptions are minimal (just 'query param q (str)'). The description adds that q, from, size are required, but the schema marks them all optional. This contradiction harms, not helps. No further semantic info on other parameters like body, sort, group, includeFields.

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 combines 'user' and 'events' ambiguously, leaving unclear whether the tool searches users or returns events. The name suggests user search, but the description says 'Returns events', creating confusion. It states the HTTP method and path, but lacks a clear statement of what the tool does.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description claims 'Required: q, from, size' but the schema shows all parameters as optional with null defaults, which is a direct contradiction. No alternatives or when-to-use/not-to-use context is given.

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