Search users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful anti-hallucination context by warning not to invent people to follow, but it does not disclose behavior like pagination limits, result shape, or rate considerations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the endpoint and the key behavioral constraint with no wasted words. It earns its place.

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?

This is a minimally viable definition for a simple read-only search tool: the endpoint, required query, and anti-fabrication rule are clear. However, without an output schema, it does not explain what results look like, and it lacks guidance for pagination or when to use alternative lookup tools.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful guidance for the query parameter, but max_results is left to its name and schema bounds, and pagination_token is only described via the schema, not the tool 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 clearly identifies a specific operation: GET /2/users/search to search users. It is not a tautology and is meaningfully distinct from sibling tools like lookup_user or lookup_users, though it does not explicitly call out those differences.

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 instruction 'Query must be what the user asked to find' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as lookup_users or search_recent. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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