get_search_users

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention pagination behavior, result format, rate limits, or any other operational characteristics.

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 very short and free of fluff, which is concise, but it is so minimal that it adds little value beyond the tool name. It is adequate as a bare statement of purpose but lacks meaningful structure or informative content.

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 search tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe what kind of user data is searched, what the response looks like, or how pagination and NSFW filtering behave. The schema covers request parameters, but the description offers almost no supporting context.

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 the parameters are already documented with descriptions for q, nsfw, after, and limit. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, but per the baseline for complete schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search users' clearly identifies the action (search) and the resource (users), so an agent can understand the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_search or get_user_by_name, and it largely restates the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_search, get_user_by_name, or get_search_communities. The description implies usage only through the words 'Search users' but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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