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

Annotations already establish read-only and closed-world safety, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: stemming in 'words' mode, case-insensitive substring matching in 'text' mode, the fields scanned (name, tagline, fields, sections, cells), and result ordering (name matches first, then a listing). It omits cost, rate limits, or performance characteristics, but for a read-only search this is solid disclosure.

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 front-loads the core action, then semantics, then return shape, with no filler sentences. The heavy use of backticked tokens makes it information-rich but slightly hard to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description did not need to enumerate return fields, yet it does so briefly and harmlessly. Required parameter 'query' is left unexplained but is self-evident. Coverage of modes, filters, and pagination is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 50% and the enum on 'match' has no per-value documentation, so the description carries real weight: it defines the semantics of all three match modes and names the optional type/owner/limit/cursor controls. The schema already documents limit clamping and cursor usage, so the description correctly avoids duplicating those.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Find entities') plus the three matching modes, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as list_entities, get_entity, or find_evidence, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains when each match mode applies and which is the default, which effectively guides mode selection. It offers no guidance on when to reach for this tool instead of list_entities or find_evidence, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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