Search GHL Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'in a location' scoping, which hints that locationId may be important, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, or how missing locationId behaves. Since the annotations carry the primary safety disclosure, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is fully front-loaded and immediately communicates the core function. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 has a simple two-parameter schema but no output schema. The description is too minimal to convey key details like the return payload, whether querying is fuzzy or exact, or the implications of omitting locationId. Without any additional context, the description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 50%, with only 'query' described (search by name or email). The description does not clarify the meaning or semantics of 'locationId' beyond the vague 'in a location' phrase. It fails to compensate for the missing schema description, leaving the agent uncertain about the locationId parameter's format, requiredness, or behavior.

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's function: searching for users/team members. This directly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like ghl_search_contacts or ghl_search_opportunities by specifying the resource type. The phrase 'in a location' adds a scope that further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for finding users, but no context is given about when to prefer it over other search tools or what specific use cases it addresses.

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