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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses cross-domain behavior, per-domain limit handling, and type scoping. It does not describe output structure or side effects, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate and goes beyond the schema by explaining the multi-domain granularity.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required) and the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. It lacks output format details, but with no output schema and read-only nature, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the example phrase and reiterates the 'limit is per domain' and 'type default all' nuances already present in the schema. It does not provide meaningful additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the tool performs a cross-domain search across schema objects, columns, UI facilities, and programs in one call. It uses a specific verb (search), names the resources (objects, columns, facilities, programs), and distinguishes it from per-domain sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool when you don't know which layer a term lives in, with a concrete example. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the use case is clear and the per-domain scope option is described.

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