search_users

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior beyond the schema: the returned fields, the fact that non-login users have an empty EmailAddress, and the backend used. It omits pagination/truncation behavior relative to the limit parameter, result ordering, and any permission or rate-limit constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for a search tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by return fields and then the non-login caveat. Dense and purposeful, though the TaskManagers/TaskMembers reference is slightly compressed and could be clearer about where that field appears.

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?

No output schema exists, so spelling out the return fields and the empty-email edge case is genuinely necessary and done well. It is not fully complete because the interaction between the limit parameter and result truncation is never explained, which matters for a search endpoint.

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 both query and limit are already documented, and the description adds only marginal meaning (email is the username, plus case-insensitive matching restated from the schema). The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description contributes little extra parameter guidance.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource (find team members by name or email) and states the returned fields, which distinguishes it cleanly from the get_* siblings that fetch a single entity. It stops short of explicitly naming get_user as the single-record alternative, but an agent can infer the search-vs-fetch distinction from the name and description.

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 gives real routing context: it specifies projected v2 REST search rather than DataMart, which is a direct disambiguation from the query_datamart sibling. It also tells the agent what to do next with non-login users (address by UserId), but offers no explicit exclusions such as when to prefer get_user over search.

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