ti_global_search

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, yet the description still adds non-obvious semantics: which fields come back (apiPath, label, link, count) and critically that an "error" entry means the collection was NOT searched rather than no match. That error-vs-no-match distinction is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint, then guidance, then return shape, then caveats and fallback — each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition. Density is high but every clause 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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the error-entry semantics. Combined with input format examples and a failure fallback, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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% and the single param is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete input formats — free text like "8.8.8.8" versus attribute:value like "email:example@gmail.com" — which clarifies accepted syntax beyond the schema's generic wording.

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 ("Global search across every collection") and pins the exact endpoint, making it unmistakable against siblings like ti_get_collection or ti_list_collections. It also names the scope (every collection) that differentiates it from per-collection lookups.

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?

Explicitly says "Start here when you have an indicator but not a collection, then pull the detail with ti_get_collection" — naming both the trigger condition and the follow-up alternative. It additionally gives a fallback path (search collections one by one) if this tool fails.

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