Get Garoon Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that it is read-only. It adds value by disclosing the special self-referential behavior and supports pagination, which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 concise and front-loaded. It states the core purpose in the first sentence, follows with a critical usage note, and ends with pagination support. No redundant or extraneous wording exists; every sentence contributes useful 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?

The tool is relatively simple, has an output schema, and sufficient annotations. The description covers the returned fields (name, ID, code), the searchable criteria (name/code), pagination, and the self-referential edge case. It does not mention prerequisites like authentication, but given the read-only nature and existing schema, it is adequately complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, including the IMPORTANT note about omitting the name parameter for self-referential queries. The tool description repeats this note and mentions pagination, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a 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 clearly states the tool retrieves user data (name, ID, code) from Garoon by searching name/code. It uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (user data), and mentions the search method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with schedules, facilities, or bulletins.

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 provides clear context by specifying how to use the tool for standard name/code searches and highlights a critical usage note for self-referential queries (omitting the name parameter). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but given the sibling list, its purpose is unambiguous.

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