Search Users

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and open-world, and the description doesn't contradict these. The description adds that the include parameter controls extra response fields but doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or behavior for missing/empty results. Given the annotations, the additional context is useful but minimal.

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 exactly two sentences—concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every phrase adds meaning. No fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 relatively simple read-only search endpoint, the description covers the essentials: what to search, which fields identify a user, and how to request additional attributes. While pagination and default return fields are not mentioned, the low complexity and presence of readOnly/openWorld annotations make the description sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces search_term semantics (name, login, email) and explains the include parameter's purpose, going slightly beyond the schema's enum list to clarify the response-related intent. This adds value without redundancy.

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 'Search for users in a Canvas account by name, login, or email'—specific verb, resource, and scope. It differentiates from siblings like search_course_content and list_course_users by emphasizing account-level user search with common identifiers.

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 implies the tool is for account-scoped user searches but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like list_account_users or list_course_users. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use cues, only an implicit Search vs. list distinction.

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