Search Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions the search scope ('by username or name') but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or result format. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that states the tool's purpose and provides usage context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality followed by helpful context.

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 that this is a read-only search tool with comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and 100% schema description coverage, the description provides adequate context. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but for a search tool, the description combined with annotations provides sufficient information for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions searching 'by username or name' which aligns with the searchTerm parameter documentation. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps but doesn't need to.

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: 'Search for GitLab users by username or name'. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('GitLab users'), and search criteria ('by username or name'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_gitlab' or 'search_groups', which reduces the score from a perfect 5.

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 implied usage guidance with 'useful for finding team members or contributors', which suggests when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_current_user' or 'list_group_members', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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