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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the description is consistent with that; it also adds the genuinely useful behavioral detail that results are grouped by type. However, it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or rate limiting, which matter for a cross-entity search.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the covered entity types, followed by the API mapping. Every clause carries information; the 'GET /api/v2/search' fragment is marginally redundant but harmless.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it never mentions pagination, result limits, or how grouped results should be interpreted, which an agent needs before issuing a broad search.

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 100%, so both q and types are fully documented in the schema, including the comma-separated format and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Quick search across tickets, people, organizations, articles...') and enumerates the covered entity types, so the agent knows the scope precisely. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many list_* siblings (e.g. deskpro_list_tickets), leaving the search-vs-list distinction to inference.

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 word 'Quick search' implies a broad, exploratory lookup rather than a targeted fetch, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g. 'use deskpro_get_ticket for a single known ID'). Usage is only implied.

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