search

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description only adds the organizational scope. It discloses nothing about pagination behavior tied to 'limit', result ranking, or how matches across different entity types are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier sits at the end where it belongs. It is efficient, though arguably undersized given the documentation gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions the entry is thin. It omits query format, limit semantics, and any routing advice, leaving the agent under-informed despite the low structural complexity.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to meet it. 'query' and 'org_id' are only loosely implied by 'full-text search... in an organization', and 'limit' is never addressed at all.

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 resource scope (endpoints, software, in an organization), which is enough to separate it from the list_*/get_* siblings. The trailing 'etc.' weakens precision about exactly what entity types are searchable, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no when-to-use guidance and never names an alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether 'search' is preferred over list_endpoints or get_endpoint for a given lookup, or what query syntax is expected.

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