Search across the panel

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is satisfied. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches across multiple resource types in one call and returns results side by side. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are less critical given the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant or promotional language. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the practical use case, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 three-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what can be searched, why to use it, and the general shape of the result (side-by-side matches). It doesn't describe result fields or error behavior, but that is not required given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds helpful guidance about the 'query' parameter by listing example search inputs (name, email, IP, partial UUID), but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for 'limit' or 'types'. Overall, the schema descriptions already carry the load.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Search'), the specific resources covered ('users, servers, nodes and eggs'), and the expected result ('matches side by side'). It also explains the distinguishing use case of searching when the resource type is unknown, which separates it from the many list/get sibling tools.

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 description gives an explicit 'Use this when...' condition with specific inputs (name, email, IP, partial UUID) and clarifies that it is for cases where the resource type is not known. It does not explicitly name when to prefer a specialized list/get tool instead, but the intended context is clear.

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