search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for WebSim users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., user profiles, IDs), whether it's paginated (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just four words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than efficiently informative. Still, every word earns its place by stating the essential purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (search with pagination parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are ordered, error handling, or authentication needs. For a search tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (query, limit, offset) well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what the query searches against or format examples). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Search for WebSim users' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (WebSim users), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling search tools like search_assets or search_feed, nor does it specify what kind of search this performs (e.g., by name, email, username). The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from similar tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for getting user information (get_user, get_user_followers, get_user_following, get_user_stats) and other search tools, but the description doesn't indicate whether this is for finding users by name, for paginated browsing, or when to prefer this over get_user. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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