Api search retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful behavioral trait that matching is fuzzy (not exact) and spans all models at once, but says nothing about result caps, ranking, or whether results respect the caller's permission scope.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the scope statement comes first. It is efficient but sits right at the edge of under-specification for a broadly-scoped tool.

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, so the description should explain the shape of results (mixed model types, identifiers, ranking, pagination), and it does not. Combined with the unexplained query mechanism and undefined set of "searchable models", an agent cannot confidently call or interpret this tool from the definition alone.

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?

Parameter count is zero, which normally sets a baseline of 4, but for a search tool the critical input is the query string and the schema exposes no such field; the description does not explain how the search term is supplied (path, body, or fixed behavior). That omission leaves the single most important semantic unexplained.

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?

"Universal fuzzy search across all searchable models" names a verb (search) and a scope (all models), so the basic action is identifiable. But "searchable models" is undefined and the definition gives no signal to distinguish it from the many sibling list/autocomplete/retrieve tools in this API surface.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus the dozens of siblings, notably the per-model `_list`, `_autocomplete_retrieve`, and `_object_retrieve` tools, or the generic `ciso_assistant_api_request`. Nothing says when fuzzy global search beats a targeted list call, or whether it is a replacement or a discovery step.

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