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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses that results come as a single ranked list with each item tagged by type and slug/id, and mandates surfacing entity-type mismatches to the user instead of silently substituting — a non-obvious behavioral constraint not present in any structured field. It stops short of describing empty-result or pagination behavior, so not a full 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and entity list, followed by routing guidance and then the mismatch rule. The first sentence is dense with parenthetical enumerations, but every clause carries decision-relevant information and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema available, the description supplies exactly the missing piece — the shape of the return value (single ranked list, type- and slug-tagged) — plus routing guidance across a 27-tool sibling set. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret or escalate its results 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, searchText, and excludeFamilyLikeTitles semantics. The description only restates that searchText is required and enumerates the covered entity types; it adds nothing about the limit range or the excludeFamilyLikeTitles flag beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ALL entity types'), enumerates every entity type covered, and explicitly contrasts itself with the type-specific search siblings. An agent can distinguish it from search-companies or search-job-titles without reading any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('you don't yet know which track an entity belongs to, or to disambiguate an ambiguous name') and a when-to-prefer-alternative rule naming five concrete sibling tools. It even prescribes a workflow for the cross-type mismatch case, which is a genuine routing decision left to the agent.

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