search_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It describes the search function and parameters but does not explicitly state read-only safety, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. The search nature implies it is safe, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 concise: one introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a simple search tool with an output schema (not required to describe returns), the description covers parameters and behavior well. It could mention edge cases (e.g., empty results) but overall is adequately complete given tool simplicity.

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 0%, so the description provides all parameter meaning: query as substring match, limit as max results (default 50), include_inactive for deactivated users. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 Jira users by name, username, or email fragment. It specifies a concrete verb ('Search'), resource ('Jira users'), and search criteria, distinguishing it from siblings like get_all_users (which returns all users) and search_issues (which searches issues).

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 substring-based user searches but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_all_users for unfiltered retrieval or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No context on when to prefer search_users over other user-listing tools is given.

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