search_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search functionality but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'pid' parameters but not explained), or what the output format looks like. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by 'pid' but not described). For a search tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be 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?

The description mentions searching by 'name or name pattern', which aligns with the 'name' and 'name_pattern' parameters in the schema. However, schema description coverage is only 50% (2 out of 4 parameters have descriptions), and the description doesn't add meaning for 'limit' or 'pid' beyond what the schema provides. It compensates slightly but not fully for the coverage gap, meeting the baseline for moderate schema coverage.

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's purpose: searching Gelbooru users by name or name pattern. It specifies the resource (users) and the search criteria (name/name_pattern), making the verb+resource combination explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like search_posts or search_tags, which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_comments or get_character_tags that might involve user data. Usage is implied by the search functionality but not explicitly defined.

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