supabase_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure burden. It mentions pagination parameters exist but doesn't describe pagination behavior, result limits, or response format. No indication of whether this is a safe read-only operation or if it has rate limiting implications.

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 brief (one sentence), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is cryptic metadata that wastes space without adding value. The core sentence is efficiently structured but could front-load result set expectations (single vs. multiple users).

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?

Lacks output schema and fails to describe return values (user objects, array vs. single object, metadata). With four parameters and zero schema documentation, the description should explain parameter semantics and search behavior, but leaves critical gaps particularly around the `site` parameter and result structure.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description inadequately compensates. It implies the `query` parameter accepts email/phone values, but provides no guidance on the required `site` parameter (likely a project reference), nor explains `page`/`per_page` behavior beyond their names.

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?

States the specific action (search) and target resource (users) along with searchable fields (email or phone number). However, it fails to distinguish from the similar sibling tool `supabase_get_user_by_email`, leaving ambiguity about whether this returns multiple results, supports partial matching, or requires exact matches.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus close siblings like `supabase_get_user_by_email` (exact match lookup) or `supabase_list_users` (bulk listing). No mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or authentication context despite being a user search operation.

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