users_find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses caching behavior ('Cached for 5 minutes'), partial match support, and that it searches within the company. This adequately informs the agent of key behavioral traits without hidden surprises.

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 well-organized into sections ('Workflow tips', 'Common use cases'), uses bullet points for readability, and every sentence serves a purpose. It is concise yet comprehensive, avoiding unnecessary detail.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, behavioral notes, and examples. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the difference between searching by name vs email, provides example inputs for both parameters, and clarifies that 'search_by_email' is a numeric flag. This fully compensates for any potential ambiguity in the schema.

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 'Find users by name or email' and elaborates on the search scope within the company. The verb 'find' and resource 'users' are specific, and the tool is well-distinguished from sibling tools like users_list and persons_search.

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 includes workflow tips indicating when to use this tool ('faster than filtering users/list results') and provides common use cases with examples. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools like persons_search or search_universal.

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