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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that matching is full-text and that the endpoint is GET /search, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, or that responses mix record types — notable for a search with no limit parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the scope statement; nothing is padded. The trailing 'GET /search' is low-value but harmlessly brief.

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 this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say something about what comes back — particularly that results span four heterogeneous entity types and how they are distinguished — which it omits.

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% with a single required 'term' parameter that is already documented. The description's 'for a term' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — it does not explain matching rules (substring vs word, case sensitivity) that would help shape a query.

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 specific verb and resource ('Full-text search') plus the exact scope ('across people, companies, deals and projects'). The enumeration implicitly differentiates it from the entity-specific siblings (search_people, search_deals, etc.), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the cross-entity search versus the per-entity siblings, but the description never states when to prefer it (e.g., 'use when you don't know the record type'). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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