search_users

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Search' signals a read-only lookup, and 'by name or handle' scopes the matching behavior. However, it does not disclose match semantics (partial/exact, case sensitivity), pagination, or response structure.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and search criteria efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return format and matching behavior to inference. It is sufficient for basic invocation but lacks richer context that would help an agent fully know what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the query parameter matches against name or handle, which the schema description ('Search query for users') does not state. The limit parameter gains no extra semantic detail, but the key parameter is clarified.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('Bluesky users'), and explicit search criteria ('by name or handle'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_posts by focusing on users rather than posts.

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 use case is implied — use this when you need to find Bluesky users by name or handle — but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives such as search_posts or get_profile. No exclusions or comparison points are provided.

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