search-users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('search users') without any information about permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the search returns. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 phrase ('ユーザーを検索する') that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element earns its place by conveying the core action.

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 complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool with three parameters and multiple sibling search tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 clear descriptions for 'query' (search keyword), 'size' (number of items to retrieve, max 20), and 'start' (starting position). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search syntax or result format. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 'ユーザーを検索する' (search users) clearly states the verb and resource, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search-all', 'search-magazines', or 'search-notes', which all perform search operations on different resources. The description is vague about scope or differentiation.

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. There are multiple search-related sibling tools (e.g., 'search-all', 'search-magazines', 'search-notes'), but the description doesn't indicate that this is specifically for searching users or when it might be preferred over broader search tools. No context or exclusions are mentioned.

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