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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that results are campaign-scoped and returns a trimmed projection (id, name, type, summary) rather than full entities. It omits matching semantics (substring vs prefix, case sensitivity), any result cap or pagination, and ordering, which matter for a search tool.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the action first and the return contract second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what is necessary.

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 three-parameter read-only lookup with annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to call it correctly: scope is campaign-bound, required inputs are obvious, and the return fields are named. The remaining gaps (match semantics, result limits) are refinements rather than blockers.

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 67% and the two documented parameters already explain query ('Text to look for in entity names') and the entityType vocabulary. The description adds essentially nothing beyond this and does not compensate for the undocumented campaignId or clarify whether entityType is an exact filter or a hint; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Searches a campaign's entities by name') and even states the return shape (id, name, type, summary), so the operation is immediately identifiable. It does not, however, contrast itself with the close siblings list_entities, get_entity, or get_related_entities, leaving the agent to infer why it would choose a name search over a listing.

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?

'by name' implicitly signals that this is a text-match lookup rather than a full enumeration, which is a weak but real distinction from list_entities. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of whether it should be preferred over list_entities when the name is already known, and no guidance on empty-result behavior.

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