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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds almost no behavior beyond that: nothing about matching semantics (prefix, substring, fuzzy), result ordering, whether results are grouped per entity type, or how paging behaves. With annotations carrying the safety burden the bar is lower, but for a search tool the match and ranking behavior is the thing an agent most needs and it is absent.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler or repetition of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 three parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a large overlapping sibling set, so the description carries most of the explanatory burden. It covers only what is searchable, omitting pagination, result shape, and search-versus-list routing, which leaves an agent unable to call it confidently beyond the happy path.

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 all three parameters (q, limit, cursor) are undocumented in the schema. The phrase "by name or text" gives a hint about what q accepts, but limit and cursor are never mentioned, and even for q there is no information about syntax, operators, or the 200-character cap's practical implications. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Finds records, lists, requests, projects, people, notes and monitors" gives a specific verb plus an enumerated set of resources, which makes the cross-entity scope clear. It stops short of differentiating itself from the many single-entity siblings such as list_projects, list_notes or list_collections, so an agent must infer that this is the unified search entry point.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a sibling list containing dozens of list_* and filter_* tools that overlap in intent. The only implied guidance is that it works across entity types "by name or text", leaving the agent to guess whether to search here or call the per-type list tool.

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