search_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison,' which adds value beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation-free but complex operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context. Every sentence earns its place by specifying sources and behavioral traits without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is mostly complete for a search operation. It covers purpose, scope, and key behaviors like duplicate detection. However, it doesn't explain return values or result formatting, which could aid the agent, slightly reducing completeness.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying a broad 'query' scope. It meets the baseline of 3 by not repeating schema info, but doesn't compensate with extra insights like query syntax examples or source prioritization.

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 verb ('Search across') and resource ('all available sources') with specific scope ('local portfolio, GitHub portfolio, and collection'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison across all three tiers,' differentiating it from more targeted search tools like search_portfolio or search_collection.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Search across all available sources') and implies alternatives by mentioning 'all three tiers,' suggesting it's for comprehensive searches. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools like search_portfolio for narrower searches, which prevents a perfect score.

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