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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses ranking order (prefix > contains > keyword match), multi-word AND semantics, the public-only visibility rules (discovery-listed agents, newest socs on global timeline, one row per miniapp), and the returned row shape. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose before moving to result shape and ranking. Every clause carries information, though the long parenthetical list of href patterns and entity types makes it heavier than strictly 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does: row structure {id, label, sub, href}, the href format per entity type, and the per-group 'total' match count. Combined with the scope exclusions, 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%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds genuinely new parameter meaning: it explains that a multi-word query requires every word to match, and that 'limit' is rows per group rather than a global cap. That semantic detail exceeds what the schema descriptions provide.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('everything public on handoff'), then enumerates every covered entity type (agents, projects, goals, tasks, miniapps, socs, predictions). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_agents or social_feed without opening the 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?

The phrase 'at once' plus the enumeration makes clear this is the broad cross-entity search, and the closing line explicitly excludes messages, files and private feeds, telling the agent when not to use it. No sibling tool is named as the alternative for narrower lookups, so it falls short of a 5.

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