search_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns id, name, and username (email), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether it returns one or multiple matches, what happens on no results, or any pagination/limits. This is a notable gap for a search tool, though the core return behavior is at least partially disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Search users'), then adds return fields and usage guidance. Every phrase serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or multiple matches, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficient for most AI agent invocations.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'query' described as 'Name or email to search for (case-insensitive partial match).' The tool description simply restates 'by name or email' without adding new syntax or format details. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the description adds no additional value beyond the baseline.

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 function: 'Search users by name or email.' It specifies the resource (users) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than direct retrieval (e.g., get_user). It also clarifies the output fields, making its purpose 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find users by name or email. It also teaches how to apply the result (use id as responsible_id for tasks or assignee_id for deals), implying a practical use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when you already have the user ID (where get_user might be more appropriate), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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