Search Users

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

Annotations already supply the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false) and openWorldHint. The description adds that it returns 'basic profile information', which is a modest behavioral detail, but it does not describe limits, pagination, or the exact shape of results. Given the annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and expected return in a compact format.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description covers the basic intent but leaves out practical details such as pagination, result limits, or sorting. The openWorldHint implies variable output, which mitigates the lack of an output schema, but an agent might still need more context about result size or fields.

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%, so both parameters (query, tenantId) are already documented. The description restates that search is by name or email, which adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('users in the organization'), and the search criteria ('by name or email address'). It is clear enough to distinguish from search_users_for_mentions, which targets mention-specific lookups, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling search_users_for_mentions exists for a different use case, but the description does not mention it or any exclusion criteria. An agent would need to infer when this is appropriate.

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