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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns compact cards with stable dfx ids and a per-domain coverage note, and it trades depth for breadth. It doesn't disclose pagination or default sort behavior, but the schema covers limit/cursor.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core value proposition and then lists the filter categories. It is slightly long but every sentence adds context about scope, output, or trade-offs. No wasted words.

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 broad search tool with 19 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a good sense of scope and output format, but it doesn't explain the semantics of the many optional filters or the pagination/response shape. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameter names, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the 21% schema coverage.

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 only 21%, so the description must compensate. It does mention the key filter categories (entity_type, domain, state, sector) and the name query, but it doesn't explain the meaning of many other parameters (min_aum_usd, recent_activity_days, has_sponsor_relationships, etc.). The description adds some value by framing the filter groups, but the low coverage leaves a gap.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('every DFX domain at once'), enumerates the domains covered, and explicitly contrasts itself with the per-domain searches. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling search_* 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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you want breadth across all domains in one query. It also notes the trade-off ('fewer per-domain filters than the domain searches'), which implies when not to use it. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the contrast with 'domain searches' is sufficient.

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