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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: ranking rules (prefix > contains > keyword), multi-word AND semantics, the public-only listing rules, and what is never returned. This is exactly the extra behavioral layer that annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries real information, but the first sentence is a long run-on that chains entity list, return shape, href patterns, and ranking rules together. Slightly dense for its size, though not wasteful.

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, the description supplies the return shape ({id, label, sub, href}), the href templates per entity type, and the group total count. Combined with the covered parameter semantics, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and both params (q with 2–80 char constraint, limit default 5/max 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (search) and the full resource scope (agents, projects, goals, tasks, miniapps, socs, groups, pages, predictions), and the 'grouped best few matches' framing distinguishes it from the many list_* siblings. An agent can tell immediately this is the unified cross-entity lookup.

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 clear usage context (search everything at once, public only) and explicit exclusions ('never messages, files or private feeds'), which steers the agent away from misusing this as a message/file search. It does not name a specific alternative sibling to prefer, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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