Gitea: Search users

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description needed to add context such as result limits, pagination, match semantics (prefix vs substring), or behavior when both identifiers are passed — and it adds none of these. Beyond the annotation, the sentence carries no behavioral information.

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?

A single short sentence is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the verb, so there is no padding to trim. However, the '[UNIFIED]' tag is noise that survives at the front of the sentence where it competes with the actual purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should say something about the form of results, and it does not; and the required 'site' parameter is left unexplained despite being mandatory on every invocation. For a small read-only search tool this is not catastrophic, but an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely fails: it only renames 'q' as 'query' and 'uid' as 'user ID' without format, matching rules, or precedence. The required 'site' parameter, which every call must supply, is not mentioned at all in the description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search for Gitea users') plus the two lookup modes ('by query or user ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from write tools and from sibling user tools on other platforms. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is opaque jargon that adds no discriminating information, and the platform attribute is the only thing setting it apart from supabase_search_users.

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 on when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no clarification of the relationship between the two lookup modes. An agent cannot tell from the text whether 'q' and 'uid' are mutually exclusive, whether one takes priority, or what happens when both are supplied.

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