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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial extra context: per-workspace tagging of results, the partial flag semantics with an explicit instruction to disclose it, per-workspace error fields, and an untrusted-content warning. This is behaviour an agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with purpose then scoping, then return shape, then routing, then the injection warning. Every sentence earns its place, though inlining the full response shape makes it denser than necessary for a three-parameter tool.

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 exists, and the description supplies the return contract ({results, workspaces, partial, limitPerType}), the degradation behaviour when partial is true, and the injection caveat. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 33% (only workspaceId documented), but the description compensates: it explains the full-text nature of query, maps objectTypes to the five entity types, and re-states the multi-workspace behavior of workspaceId. It doesn't restate length bounds or the maxItems/enum constraints, so it's not fully compensatory.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Full-text search across companies, people, deals, leads and products you may view.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from list_records (structured queries) and get_record/fetch (id lookups).

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?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: omit workspaceId to search every workspace, pass it to search one; 'Use list_records with filters for structured queries'; 'Pass a result id to fetch' routes follow-ups. Alternatives and their selecting conditions are named.

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