slack_find_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with the one-hour cache and the refresh-bypass behavior plus the required scopes per path. It stops short of describing result shape or lookup failure modes.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the main name-lookup path is stated first. The final line is truncated ('U.../W... uses users.info'), which slightly hurts readability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Query and refresh semantics plus the cache/permission context are covered; only 'limit' and 'workspace' are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a 4-param tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It effectively explains what 'query' may contain (name, email, ID) and what 'refresh' does, but 'limit' and 'workspace' are never addressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find people by name via cached users.list') and immediately distinguishes the underlying API path by query type (name vs email vs U.../W... ID). An agent can tell this is a user-lookup tool and not a generic search tool.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: exact email goes to users.lookupByEmail, U.../W... IDs go to users.info, everything else hits the cached users.list. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling slack_user_info, which is the closest ambiguity, so it falls short of a 5.

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