litmos_search_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (list of users with Id, UserName, FirstName, LastName) and mentioning the relationship to other tools, which enriches behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, then usage advice, followed by detailed Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring format is slightly verbose. Good front-loading of the core 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 only one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what to search, how to use results, and the return format. It could mention result limits or pagination, but is sufficiently complete 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?

The parameter 'search' is already well-described in the input schema (matching against several fields). The description's Args section restates this without adding new meaning. With high schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states it searches for Litmos users by name, email, username, or company, and specifies returns a list with IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like litmos_list_users and litmos_get_user by emphasizing search capability and ID usage for other 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?

The description explicitly tells users to use the returned Id values with other tools to retrieve training data, providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus alternatives, but the context signals and sibling names imply the tool is for searching before calling more specific tools.

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