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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: results come back as hits with highlights grouped by kind, and it names the underlying endpoint (POST /api/Search). It stops short of mentioning pagination defaults or a max result size, which live only 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 compact sentences with the scope front-loaded and return shape second. The endpoint reference is arguably redundant with the title, but the description is well within budget and wastes little space.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (hits, highlights, grouped by kind), which is the main thing an agent cannot learn elsewhere. Combined with 100% schema coverage on params and a readOnly annotation, only minor gaps remain (result limits, pagination defaults).

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 skip/take/query/filter_types are all documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of 'grouped by kind' and highlighted hits, which touches filter_types semantics but does not elaborate on query syntax or filter interaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (full-text search) and enumerates the resources searched (contacts, individuals, campaigns, projects, segments, tags). The 'same search as the Virtuous search bar' framing makes the global scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like virtuous_search_contacts or virtuous_search_projects, but the enumerated kinds imply the difference.

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 implied by the 'global search bar' framing and the fact that filter_types lets you narrow kinds, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative for scoped searches (e.g. search_contacts). An agent must infer that this is the broad option and the siblings are the narrow ones.

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