Search users

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses that query is a substring match across name/full name/email and that oid mode returns just one user, but says nothing about result ordering, case sensitivity, permissions, or pagination beyond the schema-stated limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability in a single well-formed sentence. The second sentence is compact but reads as a global hint unrelated to searching, which slightly dilutes focus without bloating the description.

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?

Output schema presumably covers return values and the tool is a non-destructive read, so the safety/return burden is low. What remains thin is routing against overlapping siblings (get_user, search_objects) and any search-behavior nuances such as matching rules.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description restates the query breadth (name, full name, email) and reinforces that oid returns a single result, adding modest emphasis but no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find midPoint users") and distinguishes the two lookup modes: free-text query vs exact OID. It does not name or differentiate itself from sibling get_user, which also retrieves a single user by identifier, so boundaries with siblings remain implicit.

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?

Gives mode-level guidance (query for free-text, oid for exact, omit to list) but never says when to prefer this over get_user or the various list_* siblings. The closing advice about naming people by display names when writing is workflow guidance for other tools rather than a rule for invoking this one.

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