search-users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial matching semantics, the returned entity shape, and the distinction from fuzzy contact search. It does not mention plural/paged results, but the schema covers pagination.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first delivers purpose, input, and output shape; the second gives the routing rule. The example is concrete and useful without being verbose.

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 low-complexity tool with complete annotations and schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the return shape and the alternative tool, but framing it as 'a person' slightly obscures the paged/list behavior implied by cursor and maxItems. The schema fills that gap, so the shortfall is minor.

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 the schema already describes the name parameter as 'Display name fragment or email address' plus detailed cursor and maxItems semantics. The description adds no significant new parameter meaning beyond the example, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: resolve a person by partial display name or email, with a concrete example showing the expected output (Entra user with email + id). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling, search-people, by indicating that search-users is for directory resolution rather than fuzzy contact matching.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to prefer search-people for fuzzy matches among the user's contacts, giving a clear when-not-to-use condition and naming the alternative. This is sufficient routing guidance for the main ambiguity.

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