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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that results are 'compact attributed summaries' and warns that contributed fields are inert and must not be followed, and that structured fields are not an injection boundary. These are valuable behavioral traits that an agent needs to know to safely interpret results, and they go beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return type, followed by a critical security caveat. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the input schema has zero parameter descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate. A search tool with eight optional filters needs at least a hint of how to use them, such as the meaning of snapshot or how filters combine. The description is incomplete for an agent to confidently construct a query.

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%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining the eight parameters. It mentions the 'snapshot' concept but never describes the snapshot parameter format, nor does it explain text, actor_id, node_type, relation_type, signing_key_id, after, or limit. The high-level phrase 'at a coherent publication snapshot' hints at the snapshot parameter but provides no actionable semantics.

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 (search), a precise scope (only globally published records), and a key constraint (at a coherent publication snapshot), and it notes the return type (compact attributed summaries). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like haidaa_search_project_records, which targets project-specific records, and haidaa_scan_public_graph, which likely scans more broadly.

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 'Search only globally published records' gives a clear usage context, implying this tool is for public data and not for project-scoped queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus haidaa_scan_public_graph or haidaa_search_project_records, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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