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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it searches across multiple kinds and returns matching objects with identifiers, but it does not disclose ranking, pagination, or matching strictness beyond what the schema already says about names, descriptions, and tags.

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 compact sentences: platform scope, use case with examples, and output promise. All information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read-only discovery tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is complete. It defines scope, when to call it, what to pass, and what comes back (objects with slug/id). With annotations covering the safety profile, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by illustrating query semantics with concrete natural-language examples ('the AI hackathon in Berlin', 'Sasha's team') and by clarifying that results expose the identifiers needed by other tools. This enriches the query parameter beyond its schema definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search across the platform: events, teams, projects, people and articles.' The use case is explicit: it finds things when you do not yet know the identifier. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling getters like event_get or team_get, which require an identifier.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool: 'One call when you do not yet know the identifier of the thing the user means.' It gives natural-language examples and explains that the returned slug or id is 'needed for every other tool,' signaling the agent to switch to sibling tools afterward.

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