Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: AND-ed/prefix matching semantics, per-type result composition, and the existence of total counts. It stops short of describing pagination or ranking behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return shape before the syntax reference. Every clause carries operational value; nothing is padding.

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?

Read-only/idempotent annotations plus an explicit statement of what is returned (top matches per type with total counts) cover the safety and return-shape questions, and limit/max are in the schema. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, pagination beyond the per-type limit, and empty-result behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents organizationId, query and limit, making 3 the baseline. The description goes beyond it by specifying the query grammar (quoted phrases, -word exclusion, from:/subject:/is:/has:/before:/after: operators), which the schema does not express at all.

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 (search) plus the exact resources searched (conversations, contacts, knowledge entries, messages) and the scope constraint ('of an organization in one call'). This multi-type scope distinguishes it from single-type siblings like knowledge_search or conversation_list without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is the cross-type search to use when several entity types are needed, and the description says what comes back. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (knowledge_search, contact_list, conversation_list) or states when this tool should not be used instead, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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