bale_search_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about result limits, exact-vs-partial matching, or whether the search is scoped to contacts. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value documentation but not these behavioral gaps.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the targets, and the lookup keys with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and target types. It is nearly complete, missing only match-behavior and scope details that an agent would not need to invoke it.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'query' parameter, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by stating the accepted forms (username or phone number). It still omits format details such as whether phone numbers need a country code or whether '@' prefixes are expected.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Bale user, bot, group, or channel') and names the two accepted query forms. It is clear enough to distinguish from bale_search_dialogs, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the input forms (username or phone number), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as bale_get_user_info, bale_get_contacts, or bale_search_dialogs when the agent already knows an identifier.

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