Search users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on result caps, pagination behavior, or matching semantics (substring vs exact), which would be the useful additions here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the little it says, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing.

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 the description should carry more of the return-shape and pagination burden, but it says nothing about result format, page/limit behavior, or how matches are ranked. For a 3-parameter search tool in a large GitHub-style toolset, this is materially incomplete.

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 67%: page and limit are documented in the schema, but the required 'query' parameter has no description. The phrase 'by name' partially compensates by indicating what query matches, but it gives no format, matching rules, or ambiguity handling. This is the baseline-3 case where the schema does most of the work.

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 concrete verb (search) and resource (users) with the matching field (name), so the agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_repositories or search_issues, which share the same search pattern, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over get_me or search_repositories, no mention of pagination workflow, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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