search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (GET), indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not mention additional behavioral aspects such as pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, or whether partial matches return multiple results. Some transparency is provided via the HTTP method, but not comprehensive.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the endpoint as supplementary context. It is succinct and every element serves a purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are covered by the schema. The description identifies the search criteria and endpoint. It does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., exact vs fuzzy matching), but given the output schema and simplicity, 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 schema description coverage is 100% with the 'query' parameter described as 'Name, email, or partial match'. The tool description largely repeats this information ('by name or email') without adding extra meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.

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 action ('Search users') and the query criteria ('by name or email'). It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint (GET /api/v2/users/search), which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user (retrieval by ID) and search_organizations.

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 when to use the tool (when searching by name/email) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. No mention of 'use get_user for exact ID lookup' or 'for organization search use search_organizations'. Usage guidance is implied but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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