ariel_search_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds only 'on Bluesky' and does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or any other behavioral nuance beyond what annotations already convey.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, making it concise. However, it is so terse that it does not include any useful structural context such as what results look like or how this relates to sibling tools.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and a search tool that clearly needs to convey matching behavior and result format, the description is too thin. An agent does not know whether results are profiles, how they are ranked, whether pagination is cursor-based, or what the 'digest' format returns beyond the schema enum.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for query, limit, cursor, and format. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for users on Bluesky' clearly identifies the verb (search), resource (users), and platform, which distinguishes it from sibling search_posts. It is concise and clear, though it does not specify whether the search matches handles, display names, or both.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ariel_search_posts or ariel_get_profile. The intended use can be inferred from the name, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided.

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