search_site_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the action; it does not disclose whether the search is read-only, case sensitivity, matching behavior, or what the response contains. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, wasting no words. It lacks detail, but for a simple tool with one parameter, brevity is acceptable, earning a 4.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return values and search semantics. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to predict results or understand search behavior. The description is too minimal for a practical search tool.

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 schema has one required 'query' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description's 'by title' gives a minimal hint that query is a title, but it does not explain format, matching logic, or provide examples, which is insufficient for constructing a correct query.

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 states 'Search site users by title.' This provides a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('site users'), and a qualifier ('by title'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_group_users, so it lacks strong differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_group_users or ensure_site_user. It simply states the action without context on scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives.

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