search_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond that — a scan ceiling of 1000 users, which signals results may be truncated — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what happens when the cap is hit. With annotations doing part of the work, a 3 fits.

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 short sentences, no padding. The searchable-field list comes first, then the scanning constraint — front-loaded and free of redundancy.

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 explained, and annotations cover read-only safety. However, with 0% schema coverage the description leaves the 'limit' parameter and its interaction with the 1000-user scan cap unexplained, so the definition is not quite self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain what the required 'query' matches (login, email, display name, surname), which is real added meaning, but it never clarifies 'limit' (default 10) or how it relates to the stated 1000-user scan cap, leaving one of two parameters opaque.

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 (find) and resource (users) and enumerates the fields the query matches — login, email, display name, last name. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_user or list_users tools, so an agent still has to guess where this fits.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives: the description never says to prefer this over list_users or get_user, nor when it should be avoided. Usage is only obliquely implied by the list of searchable fields.

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