Search Users for Mentions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or tenant-scoping nuances. It is consistent with annotations and adds modest value beyond them.

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 two concise sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return information is immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter schema with full coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from search_users, but this does not hinder correct invocation when the agent reads the sibling list.

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 every parameter (query, limit, tenantId) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics or usage details, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

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: searching for users to mention in messages, and lists the return fields (display names, emails, mention IDs). This distinguishes it from a generic user search, though it does not explicitly name the sibling search_users. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 implies the use case (mentioning users) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus search_users or other user-related tools. It gives no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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