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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the search scope and the 'one query, one result' concept. It does not mention read-only behavior, result format, pagination, limits, authentication needs, or any other operational details that would help an agent understand what will happen when invoked.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The core scope ('all layers') is front-loaded, and the list of covered layers makes the coverage explicit without sacrificing brevity.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the essential scope well. However, with no output schema or annotations, it leaves gaps around what a result contains, how results are combined, and whether pagination or ordering applies. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters completely, so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The term 'full-text' adds slight semantic value to the query parameter by implying term-based matching across text fields, but overall the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies a specific action (full-text search) and a specific resource (all layers of a project), enumerating exactly which layers are covered. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_entries and search_knowledge, which target only one layer.

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 'ALL layers' phrasing provides clear context that this tool is for cross-layer searches rather than layer-specific ones. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to infer the distinction.

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