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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: parallel fan-out across four entity types, grouped results, transparent SQL fallback, and the search_mode response field that reveals which backend ran. The one gap is that it does not quantify limits or latency, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each earning its place: core purpose first, mode behavior second, backend/routing caveat third. No filler or redundancy with the schema.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still flags the meaningful response field (search_mode). Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100% and every parameter is enum-annotated where relevant, so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates the access_level scoping rule ('applies only to agents, silently ignored otherwise'), which the schema already says, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Gnosari entities), and clarifies scope: optional text query plus filters, returning results grouped by type or a single type. It does not explicitly contrast itself with read-only siblings like gnosari_get or gnosari_collected_data, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5.

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?

Clearly explains the two operating modes (entity='all' vs a specific entity) and when the OpenSearch/SQL fallback applies, giving the agent concrete context for choosing parameter values. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance against the 18 siblings, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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