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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the search scope (name-matched across four modules) and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about result ordering, caps, or paging behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 resource and scope; nothing is wasted. The trailing 'GET /global' is endpoint trivia that adds little for an agent but costs only three words.

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 read-only search with three annotations, a fully described 4-parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and over what. Return shape/paging is reasonably inferable from the offset/next_offset schema text, so little is missing.

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% – every parameter including limit, offset, query, and modules is documented in the schema. The description's 'by name' framing restates what the query schema already says ('Text to find in record names'), 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?

Clear verb (Search) plus the four record types it spans, and it explicitly frames the cross-module scope with 'in one request'. This distinguishes it from the many per-module list_* siblings, though it never names 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?

'In one request' implies the value proposition (unified lookup vs. per-module list calls), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as teamgate_list_leads. Usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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