Base Account Search User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it searches for employee info but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, mention authentication requirements (despite an access_token parameter), or note any side effects. While the action implies a safe lookup, the absence of explicit behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the core action and a typical use case. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 straightforward search tool, the description covers the core purpose and use case. However, it omits important operational context: it does not mention the access_token parameter's role in authentication, whether the search is exact or fuzzy, or any pagination/result limits. While an output schema exists (which may describe return structure), the lack of auth guidance and search behavior leaves room for ambiguity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It partially addresses 'type' by listing possible values ('username' or 'email') but does not explain the 'query' parameter or the 'access_token' parameter. It also does not clarify which parameters are required (schema says query is required, but the description doesn't mention this). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 (search) and the resource (employee information on Base Account) with specific search criteria (email or username). It also gives a concrete use case (looking up @username for task assignment), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like base_account_get_all_users or base_account_get_user_logins.

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 a clear scenario for when to use this tool ('Dùng khi cần tra cứu @username của dev để giao task'), giving an agent practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, though the specific use case implies a focused lookup rather than broader listing operations.

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