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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of result size, pagination, permissions, or what the nested query object controls, despite being the only non-schema source of behavioral context.

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?

It is short, but it wastes an entire sentence duplicating the identical endpoint path verbatim. The remaining content is an operation ID and a pointer, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 nested-object, zero-coverage-schema tool with no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, the description supplies nothing an agent could act on: no input contract, no result description, no constraints. It is effectively a stub that offloads everything to describe_operation.

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?

There are 2 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the 'query' parameter is an unconstrained nested object with additionalProperties and no enumerated keys. The description provides zero semantics for either parameter, deferring entirely to describe_operation, leaving the agent unable to construct a call from the definition alone.

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 only restates the HTTP path 'GET /api/search/global' twice; it never says what is searched (leases, contracts, documents?) or what the result set represents. The verb+path hints at a global search but gives no resource scope, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like search_operations or get_contracts_tags_search.

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 only routing guidance is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points to a sibling for schema discovery rather than explaining when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no statement of when this global search is preferable to the many entity-specific list/search tools in the catalog.

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