search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions search criteria and purpose but does not describe case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, result limits, or whether it searches globally or only within the user's context. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and purpose. Every word adds value, with no filler.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It leaves unresolved how results are returned, what the 'lang' parameter does, and what the search behavior is, which an agent needs to invoke the tool reliably.

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 for the two parameters. It explains the 'query' parameter by specifying it accepts a name or email, but it does not explain the 'lang' parameter at all, and it omits minimum length or formatting implications.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('SplitBill users'), and search criteria ('by name or email'), and it adds a purpose ('to resolve participant IDs'), which clarifies intent. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_friends and get_bill, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from every possible alternative.

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: use it when you need to find users by name or email, particularly to resolve participant IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as list_friends for browsing known friends.

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