Search Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive concern. The description adds clear return behavior (single/multiple/empty) and specifies search fields. However, it doesn't detail matching behavior (e.g., exact vs fuzzy, case sensitivity), which leaves some ambiguity.

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 two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the action and criteria; the second addresses return types. No filler, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists, annotations present), the description covers the core behavior and return. It could be improved by specifying matching exactness, but overall it's adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 a clear parameter description. The tool description reiterates the searchable fields but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 tool searches for users based on login, email, or real name, and specifies the return behavior (single, multiple, or empty list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like user_get and users_get_all by focusing on search by attributes rather than by ID or listing all.

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 description implies when to use this tool (when you have a partial identifier like name/email/login) versus using user_get (by exact ID) or users_get_all (list all). However, it lacks explicit when-not statements or alternative tool names, which would make it a 5.

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