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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality and the goal of obtaining account IDs, but lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned results. While it covers the basic intent, it misses operational nuances that would help an agent invoke it reliably.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (search with two parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a search tool without structured output documentation, this leaves gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'maxResults'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific action ('Search for Jira users by name or email'), the resource ('Jira users'), and the purpose ('to get their account ID'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'search_issues' by focusing on user lookup rather than issue search, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to find account IDs for assigning issues.' This provides clear context for its application, distinguishing it from other user-related operations (e.g., no sibling tool like 'create_user' exists) and guiding the agent toward its primary use case in issue assignment workflows.

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