members_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a rate limit ('5/sec/guild') and the exact format of matches, providing useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and well-organized with bold headings (Purpose, When to use, Example, Returns, Rate limit). Every sentence contributes valuable information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, example invocation, output shape, and rate limiting. No critical gaps remain.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the query semantics and gives an example, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states 'Fuzzy-search guild members by username/nick prefix' with a clear verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like members_list and members_get, which are not fuzzy or search-oriented.

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?

A 'When to use' section provides concrete contexts: 'convert "find @alice" or "users named bob" into snowflake IDs.' It gives an example call but does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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