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. It mentions the tool returns a list of users matching search criteria, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured and concise, with zero wasted words. It uses a clear header, bullet points for arguments and returns, and each sentence adds specific value. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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 (2 parameters, search functionality), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, output format details, and usage guidelines. It meets the baseline for a simple search tool but leaves gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is for search keywords (name or login name) and 'limit' defines the maximum return count with defaults and bounds (default 10, max 50). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail query syntax or formatting.

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: '搜尋用戶（依姓名或登入名）' (Search users by name or login name). It specifies the verb ('搜尋' - search) and resource ('用戶' - users), and indicates the search criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'list_users', which prevents a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_user' (likely for retrieving a specific user) or 'list_users' (likely for listing all users without filtering), nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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