pylon_search_users

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source. It indicates a read-only search but does not disclose details like whether partial matches are supported, pagination, rate limits, or return format, leaving some ambiguity for a search operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and criteria.

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 simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and searchable fields. Missing details about return values are minor in this context.

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 covers the 'query' parameter 100%, but the description adds value by specifying the searchable fields (name, email, department), which is not evident from the schema alone, raising the baseline from 3 to 4.

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 for team members and support agents by name, email, or department, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pylon_search_contacts (for contacts) and pylon_get_users (which lists all users without 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?

The description implies usage when searching for users by specific attributes but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pylon_get_users or pylon_search_contacts, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool.

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