search_users

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it provides none. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the response format is, or any authentication/rate-limit requirements.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded, containing no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: a single sentence that essentially restates the tool name leaves out valuable details that could be included without added bulk.

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?

The description is inadequate for a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It fails to explain return values, pagination behavior, query syntax nuances, or how this tool fits among other search tools, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has a description), and the tool description adds no parameter information. 'page' and 'per_page' remain completely unexplained, and the description does not even hint at how to use the query syntax beyond the schema's example.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('GitHub users'), making the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling search tools like search_repositories or search_code, so it misses the highest score.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, scenarios to avoid, or relationships to sibling tools like search_repositories or search_code.

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