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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and open-world scope are covered structurally. The description contributes the cross-entity search scope, but says nothing about result limits, matching semantics, ranking, or how results from the three entity types are combined.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the resource scope; every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and annotations cover the safety profile. With no output schema, though, the description never indicates what a hit looks like or whether results are grouped per entity type — an agent must call it blind to find out.

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 documented 'terms' parameter, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The phrase 'for a keyword' merely restates the parameter rather than adding syntax or matching rules.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) plus the exact resources covered (contacts, matters, leads) and scopes it as 'global', which separates it from the many lawcus_list_* siblings that enumerate a single entity type. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 'global' implies breadth-first lookup when the entity type is unknown, which is implicit guidance for choosing this over lawcus_list_contacts or lawcus_get_matter. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternative tools is stated.

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