search_user_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes that the tool performs a read/search operation with filtering and pagination, and returns a list of user profile summaries with specific fields. There is no mention of side effects, destruction, or access requirements, which is acceptable for a search tool, but it could be more explicit about its read-only nature.

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 well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the purpose statement. While it is relatively long, every sentence adds value, and the structure supports quick reference. A slight reduction in verbosity could improve conciseness, but it is not excessive.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters, explains return structure (including fields and types), and describes pagination. However, it lacks mention of error handling, required permissions, or edge cases, which would be beneficial for completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by detailing each parameter: constraints (pattern, valid range, max length), required status, valid enum values for user_type, and the role of next_token for pagination. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.

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 it searches for user profiles within a specified Amazon DataZone domain, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_group_profiles (for groups) and get_user_profile (for a single profile). The verb 'Searches' combined with the specific resource 'user profiles' and domain context makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the tool's functionality and parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by its purpose, but there is no direct guidance on selecting it among siblings like search or get_user_profile.

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