search_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable note about keyword length affecting results, but it does not mention other behaviors such as rate limits, authentication, or pagination. For a simple read-only search, this is reasonable, but not exhaustive.

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, compact sentence that states the purpose and key return fields upfront, followed by a practical tip. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 two-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently outlines what is returned (nickname, bio, followers, URL) and provides a usage tip. While pagination or sort order are not discussed, they are not critical for this simple operation.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds an extra semantic hint about the 'query' parameter (keep it concise), which is beyond the schema's generic description. This adds value, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 searches Zhihu users by keyword and lists the returned fields (nickname, bio, followers, homepage URL). It distinctly names the resource (users) and differentiates from sibling tools like search_questions and search_articles by specifying the entity type.

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 actionable guidance on keyword length (≤3 words, too long often returns empty), which helps the agent set expectations. It implies usage context (for finding users) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives; however, the tool name and description make the primary use case unambiguous.

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