Search Organization Users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a permission requirement and indicates that only basic profile data is returned. However, it does not detail behavior like pagination, result ordering, or wildcard handling, leaving some ambiguity for a search tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Including Chinese intent aliases adds practical value without significant bloat.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, query fields, permission, and return type. It lacks an output schema, but 'basic profile data' is adequate for an initial understanding. No significant gaps remain for basic usage.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the query semantics by restating the searchable fields, but adds no new information beyond the schema. The 'top' parameter is not elaborated beyond its schema description.

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 'Search tenant users by name, email, or UPN' which clearly identifies the action (search), resource (tenant users), and search criteria. It also mentions returning basic profile data, distinguishing it from sibling tools like users_list and users_get_profile.

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: searching by name/email/UPN. It also notes the required permission (User.ReadBasic.All), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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