b24_user_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the return format ('pagination envelope of user objects'), but this is already partially implied by the output schema. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides a sibling comparison. Every word earns its place.

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 richness of the input schema (100% coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior (free-text search), return type (pagination envelope), and a key use case (partial name). One could argue it should mention pagination details, but those are covered by the schema.

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%, and each parameter (query, start, fetch_all, only_active, webhook_url, personal_webhook) has detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Free-text search for users (user.search).' It also distinguishes from the sibling tool b24_user_get by noting it's 'better when you only have a partial name.' The verb 'search' and resource 'users' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (partial name search) and contrasts it with b24_user_get. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond user.get, which would strengthen the guidance.

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