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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing trigram-similarity ranking, receipt text matching for transactions, and the default behavior of searching all entity types when types is omitted. These behavioral details are not available in the annotations or schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines scope, states exact type constraints, explains ranking and receipt matching, and gives a concrete duplicate-charge scenario. The guidance is front-loaded with the core function and then moves to practical usage, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for explaining what the result means; the trigram ranking and cross-entity matching hints at this well. It does not explicitly describe the returned item shape or how results are grouped, but for a search call the operational guidance is sufficiently complete.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond it by explaining trigram-similarity ranking and receipt-based matching, which clarifies how q behaves. It also reinforces the types semantics by naming the accepted values and the default-all behavior, though the schema already enumerates them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cross-entity full-text search.' It clarifies the tool is broad and lists the exact entity types it covers, which separates it from sibling list and get tools. The closing phrase 'Use for "find anything mentioning X" queries' makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool, including a concrete duplicate-charge workflow that mentions combining specific types and comparing payee names, amounts, and dates. It also names alternatives like list_recurrences and list_recurrence_suggestions for the full schedule, giving the agent actionable routing guidance.

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