Search entities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses this is a search operation (read-like behavior) and the scope (applications and workspaces), but doesn't describe return format, ordering, pagination, or case-sensitivity of keyword matching. Adequate basic disclosure but thin on behavioral detail.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It names both the action and the resource scope clearly and concisely.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for basic use. However, it could benefit from noting how results map to entity types, whether results return globally or per-workspace, and how it differs from the list tools. Adequate but slightly thin given the lack 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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema (keyword as 'Search term', entities with its enum values). The description adds the default-behavior note that entities defaults to all, which the schema implies but doesn't state explicitly. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation well.

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 'Searches applications and workspaces by keyword' states a specific verb (searches) with specific resources (applications and workspaces), giving a clear purpose. It aligns with the entities parameter which allows restricting to APPLICATION/WORKSPACE. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling list_workspaces/list_applications tools, though the search-by-keyword nature is distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this search tool versus the sibling listing tools (list_workspaces, list_applications). It doesn't explain that search is for finding entities by keyword while list tools enumerate all entities, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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