Search accounts

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the tool works without credentials and returns each account's bio and follower counts, which helps the agent understand the output and the intended verification use case.

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 three sentences long and every sentence carries weight. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the credential requirement and the key output fields, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only annotations and a well-covered schema, the description is largely complete for invocation. It compensates for the missing output schema by summarizing the returned fields, though it does not mention pagination behavior or result ordering, which would make it fully 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?

Schema coverage is 75%, with q, limit, and account already described in the schema. The description enhances q by clarifying that bio text is searchable, but it adds no semantic detail for limit, cursor, or account. Cursor remains undocumented, so this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: 'Find Bluesky accounts by name, handle or bio text.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling search tools like search_posts and search_feeds by targeting accounts and by naming the searchable fields.

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 useful context for when to use the tool, including the search criteria and the fact that it works without credentials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the sibling search tools.

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