get_user_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'profile info, metrics, and content analysis', which gives some output context, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get results for a user search by ID') and efficiently adds what it returns. Every word earns its place, 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 (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return types but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the description alone, which leaves gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'User search ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a 'user search ID' is, how to obtain it, or valid ranges beyond the schema's 'exclusiveMinimum: 0'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get results for a user search by ID' specifies the verb (get) and resource (user search results). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user_search_posts' by mentioning it returns 'profile info, metrics, and content analysis' rather than posts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'user_search' or 'list_user_searches'.

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 when to choose 'get_user_search' over 'get_user_search_posts', 'user_search', or 'list_user_searches'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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