get_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format looks like, if there are rate limits, or how search results are ordered. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 search tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or provide any context about Jira's user search capabilities. The agent would need to guess about the output format and search 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain how the search query works, what projectKey filtering entails, or provide examples of valid inputs. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, this meets the baseline for adequate but unenlightening parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('users in Jira'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling search tools (though none are listed among siblings), so it doesn't reach the highest level of specificity.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contextual factors that would help an agent decide between this and other user-related operations (though none are in the sibling list).

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