search-users

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Search users' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose how filters are combined, case sensitivity, partial vs exact matching, pagination, or the effect of the 'max' parameter. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple filter options.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it is perhaps too terse, omitting valuable details that could be included without bloat. It is not verbose, but the brevity borderlines under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It does not explain how to construct a search, whether filters are ANDed, or what constitutes a valid search term. More detail is needed to invoke the tool correctly beyond the raw schema.

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 each parameter having a short description (e.g., 'Email filter', 'Search term'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself is minimal. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters, but the description does not enhance understanding of how they interact.

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 'Search users in a specific realm with filters' clearly identifies the verb (search) and resource (users), and adds scope (specific realm) and capability (filters). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list-users or get-user, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 such as list-users or get-user. It does not state whether this should be used for partial matches, filtering by criteria, or when a specific user ID is unknown. No explicit use cases or exclusions are given.

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