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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about 'duplicate detection and version comparison' which isn't in the schema, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the response format looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema).

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 perfectly concise - two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds valuable differentiating context about unified search features. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. While it explains the unified search concept well, it doesn't address critical missing information: no output format description, no behavioral constraints, and no guidance on result interpretation despite mentioning 'duplicate detection and version comparison' - leaving the agent guessing about what the tool actually returns.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching 'elements' generally but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or interactions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search across all available sources') and resources ('local portfolio, GitHub portfolio, and collection'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison across all three tiers' - making it distinct from 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 about when to use this tool ('Search across all available sources') and what it offers ('unified search with duplicate detection and version comparison'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling search tools (like search_portfolio, search_collection, search_by_verb).

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