search_search_entities

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

The description mentions 'fuzzy search', implying non-exact matching, but lacks details on case sensitivity, partial matching behavior, performance implications, or whether the tool is read-only. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundant text.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a search tool with many siblings, additional context (e.g., result format, sorting, or pagination) would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not fully informative.

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 description adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by specifying the search fields (entity_id, friendly_name, device_id), which is not present in the schema. However, the 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 performs fuzzy search on entities using specific fields (entity_id, friendly_name, device_id). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_search_devices and search_search_areas, though it could be improved by explicitly contrasting with similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_find_related or search_find_unused_entities. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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