zendesk_search_users

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the return format and fields, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, pagination, or behavior on no results. Basic transparency is achieved, but more depth would be better.

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 short sentences, each conveying essential information. No filler words. The purpose and return format are front-loaded. Excellent conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the basic functionality and return fields. While pagination is not mentioned, it is not a critical omission for a search tool of this simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema only has a 'query' string with no description. The tool description adds meaning by stating the query can be a name or email, which significantly aids the agent. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 verb 'search', the resource 'Zendesk users', and the scope 'by name or email'. It also specifies the return format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zendesk_get_group_users, which is more specific.

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 for finding users by name or email, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools is available, and the description is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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