dingtalk_contact_user_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it searches and returns userId and other info, but omits details like search scope, matching semantics, handling of no results, or response structure. This is minimal for a search tool without annotation support.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and key output. It contains no fluff or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks depth given the absence of annotations and output schema. It does not clarify the full set of returned fields, whether matching is fuzzy, or how it relates to sibling search tools, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

The input schema fully describes the query parameter with 100% coverage, and the description's mention of '按姓名/职位等关键词' simply reiterates the schema's parameter description without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 searches DingTalk contact users by keywords such as name/position and returns userId and other information. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mobile and get.

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 usage context by specifying the search criteria (keyword by name/position), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_mobile or provide exclusions. Guidance is implicit, not explicit.

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