search_users

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey search fields and intent, but does not disclose behavior like result ordering, case sensitivity, or read-only nature. It's a minimal but not misleading description, warranting a mid-range score.

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 one short sentence, fully front-loaded, with zero redundant words. It earns its place by stating the essential action and target.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description plus schema provide enough information for basic usage. However, it lacks guidance on choosing between this and similar user lookup tools, which would make it fully complete.

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%, with both query and limit well-documented. The description merely repeats the schema text ('name or email'), adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (search) and resource (users), and specifies the search criteria (name or email). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_by_id (by ID) and search_groups_by_name (groups).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool — when you need to find users by name or email — but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the context is clear and no alternatives are named, it slightly misses a 5 for lacking explicit 'when-not' guidance.

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