identity_search_users

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does add real behavior: results are capped at the first 20 matches, and output varies by caller role (members get basic user info, owners additionally get role details). It stops short of describing pagination or what happens when the cap is hit.

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?

Deprecation and the alternative are correctly front-loaded, and the search semantics arrive early. But the body is bloated by a markdown access-policy table and heading artifacts (### blocks, trailing GET path) that read like pasted API docs rather than agent-facing guidance.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it only partially does so (role-dependent richness). The 20-result truncation is disclosed, but there is no indication of how to retrieve beyond the first 20 or how to page, which matters for a search tool an agent may need to iterate.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the presence-only quirk of expandProfile and includeGroupIdsInRoles. The description reinforces what userSearchTerm matches but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search for users') and describes the matching semantics precisely: substring match across firstName, lastName, username or email, with a concrete example. However, it never differentiates itself from the many sibling search tools (provider_search_ldap_users, identity_search_users_in_idp_by_names_and_email, provider_query_users), and the lead 'use this API instead: /cloudapi/1.0.0/users' is a raw REST path rather than a routable tool name, which blurs rather than sharpens purpose.

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 [DEPRECATED] marker plus the 'use this API instead' line implies when NOT to call it, and the 20-result cap comes with explicit advice ('refine the search term'). But the named alternative is a URL endpoint the agent cannot invoke from this toolset, so the redirection is not actionable within MCP, and no sibling tool is offered as a substitute.

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