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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the auth requirement ('Needs the search.read scope') and the underlying GET /search endpoint. It does not describe pagination or result ordering, and the per-page nature of 'limit' is only visible in the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the usage condition and the scope requirement. Zero filler and nothing repeated verbatim from the schema.

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 four-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description covers what is searched, when to use it, and the permission needed. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on result shape or whether results are mixed-type would have completed it.

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 all four parameters (q, type, limit, archived) are already fully documented. The description only contributes a light gloss on what q matches (name, email, number) and says nothing about combining the type array with free text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (free-text search) plus the full set of resources it spans (companies, individuals, contacts, opportunities, items, documents, staff) and the underlying endpoint GET /search. The phrase 'in one call' and the cross-type scope distinguish it cleanly from the many type-specific siblings like sellsy_search_companies and sellsy_search_invoices.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to find a record by name, email or number when you do not know its type,' which is a clear selection condition. The alternative (typed search tools) is only implied by that condition rather than named, and there is no statement of when not to use it.

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