Search Users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safety. The description adds behavioral details: returns single/multiple/empty list based on matches, and clarifies what can be searched. This goes beyond the annotation, providing valuable context.

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 concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and searchable fields, the second explains the return behavior. No unnecessary words.

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 (one parameter, output schema present, annotations provided), the description covers all necessary aspects: input criteria, expected output behavior, and safety. No gaps remain.

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 sole parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reiterates the same search criteria without adding new semantics. Per rules, 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 explicitly states the verb 'Search', the resource 'user', and details the searchable fields (login, email, real name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like user_get (by ID) and users_get_all (list 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 usage for searching users by partial information, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you have an exact user ID) or mention alternatives. The context of sibling tools provides clear differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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