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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses permission scoping ('you may view'), cross-workspace behavior, the partial flag semantics, and a security warning about untrusted CRM field values. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-organized: core behavior first, then workspace semantics, return shape, partial handling, alternatives, and security note. Every sentence adds information needed to invoke the tool correctly, with no wasted words.

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 a search tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it names searchable object types, explains workspace scoping, gives the return shape, warns about partial failures, provides an alternative tool, and flags a security consideration. Nothing critical is missing 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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains workspaceId behavior and the object types being searched, which maps to objectTypes, and 'full-text search' defines query. However, it does not explicitly describe objectTypes as a filter parameter, leaving a small 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: full-text search across five named object types. It also differentiates itself from list_records by saying structured queries should use that tool, and from fetch by saying 'Pass a result id to fetch.'

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 explains when to omit workspaceId versus pass it, and names list_records as the alternative for structured queries. It also gives a clear follow-up action ('Pass a result id to fetch'), so an agent knows how to route after search.

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