users_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that – soft-deleted records are queryable ('including deleted-user queries') – but omits pagination behavior, auth requirements, and rate limits. A 3 is appropriate given annotations carry most of the load.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before scope and the exclusion. The opening verb list ('list, search, retrieve, or identify') is slightly padded, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 14-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves roughly half the parameters (pagination, sort, query, user_id, action_name) unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0% schema description coverage across 14 parameters, the description must compensate. It names the core filter params (email, username, employee number, organisation/deleted) but leaves sort, order, limit, offset, query, user_id, and action_name entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 clear verbs (list/search/retrieve) and the resource (Snipe-IT users), and routes the agent away from writes with 'Do not use for writes or deletion'. However, the phrase 'the current authenticated Snipe-IT user' conflicts with the broad filter set (email, username, employee_num, company_id, user_id), making it ambiguous whether this is a self-lookup or a general user search.

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?

Provides an explicit exclusion ('Do not use for writes or deletion') that effectively steers the agent to users_write, plus a clear statement of the supported filter dimensions. It never names the alternative tool directly and gives no prerequisites, so it falls short of a full 5.

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