Search users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and non-exhaustive behavior. The description adds the partial-match behavior and user-id output, but those are also implied by the schema parameter description and output schema. It does not disclose additional hidden traits such as result limits or ordering, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first states the function and behavior, the second immediately gives practical use cases. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only search tool with a full output schema and supporting annotations. The description covers what it searches, how matching works, what is returned, and why an agent would use it. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter's description ('Name to search for (partial match)') fully clarifies the query field. The description essentially restates the schema's semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Repovive users'), and a precise matching mode ('by name (partial match)'). It also states the primary output ('matches with their user ids'), which uniquely identifies this tool among the siblings; no other sibling searches users.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use it to resolve a person's id before starting a direct message, blocking them, or granting contest permissions.' It gives clear contextual cues, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tool names, which is acceptable given no direct substitute appears among the siblings.

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