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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: hits include highlights and are grouped by kind, and it gives the underlying HTTP mapping (POST /api/Search). It doesn't mention pagination behavior beyond the schema, but the added result-shape detail is real value.

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?

Three compact clauses: scope, result shape, and endpoint. Front-loaded with purpose and no filler sentences.

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?

Covers scope, result grouping, and the API mapping. For a read-only, well-annotated search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the main remaining gap is routing guidance versus narrower sibling search tools.

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%, so skip, take, query, and filter_types are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (search) and resource scope (contacts, individuals, entities), and explicitly frames it as the global search bar equivalent. It is distinguishable from narrower siblings like virtuous_search_contacts and virtuous_search_projects by its breadth, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

Implies usage ('the same search as the Virtuous search bar', 'grouped by kind') but never states when to prefer this over the narrower search_contacts or search_projects siblings, nor any exclusions. An agent must infer that this is the cross-cutting option.

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