search_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that tag arguments are resolved against the portal's taxonomy, returns member cards with specific fields plus totalCount/totalPages, and explains pagination via page parameters. It doesn't cover auth, rate limits, or sorting, but provides strong behavioral detail.

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 (about 90 words) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: scope, taxonomy resolution guidance, and return/pagination details. No fluff or repetition.

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 search tool with 10 parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, how tag filters work, how to get valid tag names, what the response contains, and pagination. It omits sorting and result limits, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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. It explains that all tag arguments take human-readable names resolved against taxonomy, gives an example using skills, states combining filters narrows results, and mentions page pagination. This covers the key parameter semantics effectively, though it doesn't enumerate each filter individually.

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 searches CDTM community members (students + alumni), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tags and get_member_profile by focusing on member search and result cards.

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?

It gives explicit guidance to use list_tags() first when unsure of exact tag names, and notes that combining filters narrows the search. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_member_profile for single-member lookups, but the context makes the search-versus-profile distinction clear.

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