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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact beyond them: results are capped at 5 matches per entity type, which tells the agent that a short result set may be truncated rather than exhaustive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope ('Global workspace search') followed by the action and the result shape. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, what comes back, and the per-type cap. It omits ranking/ordering of matches and whether IDs or other fields are also matchable, which are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by characterizing 'q' as a name fragment rather than an exact identifier, implying substring-style matching semantics that the schema's 'Search query (2+ characters)' does not convey.

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 ('resolve a name fragment') and resource ('typed entities') and enumerates the eight entity types searched, which makes the tool clearly distinguishable from the numerous list_* siblings that return unfiltered collections. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly, so it falls just below the top mark.

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?

'Resolve a name fragment to typed entities' implies the usage context — you have a partial name and need to find the matching object — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative for full listings or exact-ID lookups.

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