get_user_search

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. It clearly explains oversized response truncation (truncated: true) and the meaning of results_pending, allowing the agent to handle these conditions appropriately. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but for a read operation the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 action, then immediately covers the two most important caveats (truncation and pending results). No filler words or redundant information; every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: what the response contains, how to handle truncation, and how to interpret the pending state. It doesn't spell out the exact response structure, but the high-level description is adequate given the tool's 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only refers to 'by ID' and doesn't add any new semantic detail beyond the schema's 'User search ID' description, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get results for a user search by ID'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_search_posts and list_user_searches. It also states the return payload (profile info, metrics, content analysis), making the tool's role clear and unambiguous.

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 points to get_user_search_posts as the alternative when oversized responses are truncated, and provides actionable retry guidance for results_pending. This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-defer context, which is more than most sibling descriptions offer.

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