search_deep_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states it searches and returns tagged results, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, limits, or other behaviors. Insufficient for a search tool with no annotation support.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it omits essential information about parameters and usage. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not sufficiently cover the tool's purpose and parameters.

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 (search across multiple types, 2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the limit parameter, nor does it provide enough context for correct invocation beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the tool description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's basic type info, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 searches across multiple entity types (entities, devices, areas, automations) and tags results with `kind`. This distinguishes it from specific search siblings like search_search_entities or search_search_areas.

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 implies a broader search than sibling tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specific alternatives. No when-not or alternatives mentioned.

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