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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior by noting ids and parent context are returned for disambiguation, but it does not mention pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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 definition is two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, and contains no filler. The dense enumeration of entity types and matching fields is appropriate for a cross-entity search tool.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains scope, entity coverage, matching fields, and that results include ids/parent context. Only minor search-result details such as limits or ordering are omitted.

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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by explaining what can be searched per entity type, including project number/customer job number via external_refs and site matching by address or client company.

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 (cross-entity search) and enumerates exactly which resources can be found, including the fields used to match each type. It distinguishes this from sibling list/get tools by emphasizing one-call lookup across projects, lists, tasks, workers, assets, sites, and work orders.

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?

It explicitly says to use this instead of walking projects→lists→tasks or guessing ids from display names. That gives clear when-to-use guidance and directly addresses the main alternative behavior an agent might otherwise choose.

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