search-users

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns multiple matching results with basic info (name, email, ID), implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It lacks explicit statements about idempotency or error handling, but the purpose is clear. Slightly lacking in stating limits or pagination, but adequate for a simple search.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information. The emoji and 'DISCOVERY:' label are slightly extraneous but not harmful. Every sentence earns its place, and the description is efficient.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it does, when to use it, what parameters it accepts (via schema), and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about partial name or email matching, which aligns with the schema. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Search for users' and the resource 'users'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'when you don't know exact details' and 'use this first to explore... before sending direct messages', which differentiates it from tools like get-user or get-user-by-email.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'when you don't know exact details' and 'use this first to explore and find users before sending direct messages'. This sets clear expectations compared to other sibling tools that require exact identifiers.

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