search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return value ('account IDs') and intended downstream use ('assignment'), but does not mention pagination, result limits, or access constraints. This is acceptable for a simple search but not exhaustive.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler. The action, resource, target fields, and output are all included, and it is front-loaded with the concrete search action.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the input, the expected return type, and a primary downstream use (assignment). It could mention pagination or result limits, but those are not implied by the tool's apparent simplicity.

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%; the query parameter is already clearly described in the schema. The tool description reinforces that the query can be a name or email, but it doesn't add additional parsing, formatting, or matching details beyond what the schema 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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Search for Jira users by name or email.' It explicitly states what search targets are accepted and connects output to assignment, making it easy to differentiate from sibling issue management tools.

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?

Clear context: it says the tool searches by name or email and returns account IDs for assignment, which aligns with siblings like assign_issue. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no other sibling tool performs user search, so the intended use is clear.

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