ghost_search_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the search fields but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, result ordering, case sensitivity, partial matching, or error handling. Details like these are missing.

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, precise sentence of 10 words. It contains no redundant information and is efficiently structured to convey the core purpose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return format, pagination, or behavior when no results are found. An agent would need additional information to use this tool confidently.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats that search is by name or email. Baseline is 3, and description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the action ('Searches for members'), the search fields ('by name or email'), and the system ('Ghost CMS'). It unambiguously differentiates from sibling tools like `ghost_get_members` (which lists all members) and `ghost_search_pages` (which searches a different resource).

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 implies usage for finding specific members by name or email, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as `ghost_get_members` or `ghost_get_member`. No exclusions or context about when not to use it are provided.

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