Search Zendesk Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of 'Returns total count' is useful but minimal. It does not disclose details about rate limits, the meaning of openWorldHint, or the behavior of empty queries, but it does highlight the Zendesk query syntax, which informs the agent.

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, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information: what it searches (users), how (Zendesk query syntax), and what it returns (total count). There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The description is relatively complete given the tool's simplicity and the fact that the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. However, it omits that the tool returns a list of user objects (not just a count) and does not mention pagination behavior explicitly, which could be necessary for the agent to estimate page sizes and handle large results.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that the query supports free text and field filters, and by stating the return of total count (not in schema). However, it does not elaborate on pagination semantics or the exact response structure, so a baseline 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 users by name, email, or other criteria using Zendesk search query syntax. It explicitly identifies the resource (users) and the action (search), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_tickets (tickets) or search (generic). The mention of returning total count adds concreteness.

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 when needing to search for users, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user for a single user or the generic search tool for cross-object searches. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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