Search Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool 'resolves' identifiers, implying a lookup/transformation behavior, and clarifies accepted input types. It does not disclose return format or pagination, but given the strong annotation coverage, the description provides adequate additional context.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses the second sentence to direct to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the primary parameter and gives an alternative, but it omits any mention of the return value behavior or the roles of 'project_key' and 'need_all_status'. For an agent to correctly invoke this tool, it would need additional info about these parameters, making the description incomplete.

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 clarifies the meaning of 'user_keys' by listing accepted identifier types (user_key, email, or display name). However, it does not explain the other two parameters, 'project_key' and 'need_all_status', leaving the agent without guidance on their semantics. This is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and clearly identifies the resource ('user identifiers into Meegle user records'), stating the exact input types (user_key, email, or display name). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool user_resolve_keys, which is explicitly mentioned, so the purpose is clear and differentiated.

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 a clear use case: resolving user identifiers into records. It also gives an explicit alternative ('For normalized mapping output, use user_resolve_keys'), which helps the agent choose between this tool and a sibling. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool beyond that alternative, nor does it mention other contexts like searching vs. resolving.

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