Search Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the include parameter can request extra fields (email, last_login, etc.), but this is more parameter semantics than behavioral context. No contradictions with annotations.

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 pack the main action and the key optional parameter. No fluff, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and efficient in communicating the distinctive include feature.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the search behavior and the include option. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but these are not critical given the simplistic nature and annotations. Completeness is adequate.

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% with each parameter described. The description repeats the include field values already in the enum and clarifies search_term matches name/login/email (already in schema). It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool searches for users in a Canvas account by name, login, or email. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from other user-related siblings like list_account_users or list_course_users, which list users without a search term.

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 usage (searching users by term) but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_account_users or get_user. It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.

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