bunny_global_search

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden on the description. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what the search covers (five resource types) and that matching is keyword/partial-name based. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero wasted words: first gives the core function, second states what is returned, third gives the use case. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with rich annotations, the description adequately covers input semantics, resource scope, and return types. It omits minor details such as result limits, case sensitivity, or how results are grouped, but none are critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, but the schema only describes the parameter as 'Search query'. The description adds meaning beyond that by clarifying the query is matched as a keyword or partial name against resource names, which is useful semantic content the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Search across all bunny.net resources by keyword') and enumerates the five resource types covered. This clearly distinguishes it from per-resource sibling list/get tools like bunny_list_pull_zones, bunny_list_dns_zones, and bunny_list_storege_zones.

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?

'Use this to find a resource when you only know part of its name' gives an explicit trigger condition that routes the agent to this tool instead of the resource-specific list tools. It does not name exclusion cases or alternatives explicitly, but the stated condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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