search_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the authorization constraint for scoped searches, but says nothing about read-only semantics, rate limits, or result shape. Adequate but notably incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the trigger condition first and the authorization caveat after a semicolon. No filler, every clause carries information.

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?

For a 5-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential trigger and the auth prerequisite for scoped searches. It omits only secondary details like result ordering or the limit cap, which the schema already covers.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the board/workspace scoping that maps to boardId and organizationId, but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already documents for query, limit, and onlyOrgMembers.

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 has a specific verb ('looking up') and resource ('Trello members by name or username'), which clearly distinguishes it from direct-fetch siblings like member_get. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as board_members or workspace_members, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Use when looking up Trello members by name or username' gives a clear trigger condition, and it adds the scoping options plus the prerequisite that scoped searches require token access to that board or workspace. It stops short of naming when to prefer member_get or board_members instead.

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