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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked by ts_rank_cd and that archive_status constrains item results only, but says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or pagination semantics despite having limit/offset parameters.

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 short and front-loads the core capability, but the '(A1)' and 'scoped' fragments are opaque internal references that consume space without helping an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only one parameter's semantics and omits pagination and result-shape context. It is materially incomplete for correct invocation.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains archive_status (which filters only items), leaving q, type, limit, offset, source, direction, and company_id entirely undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: full-text search across emails and items, with a disclosed ranking function (ts_rank_cd). This distinguishes it from sibling listers like list_items, though the cryptic 'scoped (A1)' fragment adds no specificity.

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 when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as list_items or get_item. The only partial hint is that the Archive page passes 'archived', which explains one caller's behavior rather than when an agent should choose global_search.

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