box_users_search_by_name_or_email_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'partial match search' which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no matches are found. The description is minimal beyond the basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, the second adds important behavioral context (partial match), and the third documents parameters and return value. However, the Args/Returns formatting is somewhat redundant since the schema already defines parameters.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'dictionary containing list of matching users', doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'query' parameter matches against 'user names and email addresses' and specifies it's a 'partial match search', which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, format requirements, or constraints for the query parameter.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('users') with the specific criteria ('by name or email'). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling user tools like 'box_users_list_tool' or 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool'.

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 when partial match search is preferred over exact match tools like 'box_users_locate_by_email_tool', nor does it provide any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with the general 'box_users_list_tool'.

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