zid_search_users

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds matching algorithm details, case-insensitivity, and result interpretation (empty result means no match). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with 4 sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall efficient.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain return values or pagination. With four parameters and no output details, the agent lacks complete understanding of what to expect. Missing description for limit and offset also hurts completeness.

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 coverage is only 25% (query param described). The description adds semantics for the required 'name' parameter (matching logic with @ detection and fallback). However, limit and offset are not explained, and the existing query param description in schema is adequate. More compensation for low coverage would be better.

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 action (search) and resource (ZIdentity users) with specific matching fields (name, login name, email). It distinguishes from sibling tools like zid_list_users and zid_get_user by specifying the search behavior.

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 explicit guidance: read-only, case-insensitive partial match, email detection, and fallback order. It also warns against retrying with split keywords or no filter, which helps avoid incorrect usage. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling search tools like zid_search_groups.

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