fr_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 describes the API endpoint and return format ('JSON response'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination. It doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise with two sentences: one states the purpose and the other provides implementation details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, but the second sentence could be more integrated or omitted if redundant with structured data, though it adds some context here.

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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and endpoint, but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the parameters indirectly ('project_identifier' and 'search_text' in the endpoint example) but doesn't explain their semantics, constraints, or formats beyond what's implied. For example, it doesn't specify what 'project_identifier' represents or how 'search_text' is matched, leaving parameters inadequately documented.

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 with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('users in a project'), and specifies the search criteria ('by name or email'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fr_get_project' or 'fr_get_all_tasks', which might also retrieve user-related information in different contexts.

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 for searching users within a project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fr_get_project' for project details or other user-related operations. It mentions the project context but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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