search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or what the response format contains (e.g., user objects, list vs. single result). For a search tool, these details are important but missing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core action and target, making it appropriately concise for a simple search tool.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of users, including any pagination or limit behavior). It does not, leaving a significant gap for an AI agent to understand the expected result. The description is too minimal to be self-sufficient.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (query, limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds 'username or display name' which mirrors the schema's field description, providing no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus, a 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 clearly states the action (search) and the target resource (users), and specifies the search criteria (username or display name). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling search tools like search_posts, the resource is clearly 'users', which differentiates it by context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any context about search behavior (e.g., exact match, partial match, pagination). The description implies its use for user lookup, but it does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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