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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: every result is a cited public record, and visibility is applied before text is searched or excerpted, which is important context for an agent using public search.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the core action and domain scope, then adds the most important behavioral caveat about visibility and citation.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values, and annotations cover safety semantics. The description gives enough scope and behavioral context to call the tool correctly, though explicit guidance on broad versus domain-specific search would make it more complete given the large sibling set.

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 50%: limit and cursor are described in the schema, while query and domains lack schema descriptions. The description lists the valid domain values, which reinforces the domains parameter, but it does not explain query behavior, matching scope, or syntax beyond the general statement that text is searched.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'One search across public GTM Daily domains,' and enumerates the covered domains (resources, jobs, tools, agencies, launches, insights). This makes the tool's scope clear, though it only implicitly distinguishes itself from the many domain-specific search siblings rather than naming them.

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?

The phrase 'One search across public GTM Daily domains' implies this is the broad, cross-domain search option, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus siblings like search_gtm_tools, search_jobs, or search_resources, nor does it state any exclusions.

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