uof_custom_search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns name, account, and UserGuid, and notes visibility restrictions. It does not mention behavior on empty results or any side effects, but since it's a search operation, this is mostly sufficient. A mention of no-results handling would elevate it to 5.

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 extremely concise: two short paragraphs (three sentences in total) that front-load the main action and then provide usage guidance. 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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with an output schema (as indicated), the description adequately explains the return fields (name, account, UserGuid) and usage context. It covers the necessary information for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 input schema for the single parameter 'keyword' includes a description with examples (e.g., 'asgard', '王小明') and usage hints. The tool's description reinforces the purpose, adding meaning beyond schema alone. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 states the specific action '依姓名或帳號關鍵字查詢 UOF 人員' (query UOF personnel by name or account keyword) and the return fields (name, account, UserGuid). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are for form manipulation and task management, not user search.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: when specifying first_signer_account for apply_form, to ensure correct account. It also notes the limitation that results are limited to personnel visible to the current account, providing clear context and exclusions.

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