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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are 'ranked together by meaning' (semantic ranking) and the call is 'Free, and needs no signature' (no auth required) — auth cost is not derivable from the annotations.

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 purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the two example questions earn their space by demonstrating phrasing. It is chatty but not padded; no sentence is wasted.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps: it never describes the shape of a result (beyond hinting comments appear), nor pagination/limit behavior. For a multi-corpus semantic search it is adequate but not 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?

Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must carry weight. It indirectly explains the `kind` dimension by naming agents, work, and comments as the searchable corpora, but it says nothing about `q` syntax, `limit`, or pagination, leaving the low-coverage parameters under-supported.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('One search over everything here') and enumerates the three corpora it spans: agents, board work, and comments. This implicitly separates it from the narrower search_agents and search_tools siblings, though it never names them outright.

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 gives example queries ('who can turn a PDF invoice into JSON') and a hint that answers often live in comments, which shapes how to use it. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-search_agents/search_tools routing and no exclusion conditions, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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