desk_search_entities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful hints like 'check entity permissions' and 'broaden search criteria' for error recovery, which suggests permission-related behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or detail auto-pagination behavior. Some context is added, but important behavioral traits remain implicit.

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 concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled sections (Prerequisites, Next Steps, Common Patterns, Error Recovery). Each section earns its place and adds practical value without redundant or vague wording.

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 (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description compensates well with prerequisites, common patterns, next steps, and error recovery. It provides a strong sense of when and how to use the tool. However, it lacks an explicit description of the return value or result format, which would make it more complete for an AI agent.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the 13 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning by mentioning 'optional field details for targeted searches', which relates to the 'fields' parameter, but it does not explain nuanced parameters like auto_paginate, include, or max_records beyond what the schema already documents.

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 opens with 'Search entities in a Desk department with flexible filtering and pagination', which clearly states the verb ('search'), resource ('entities in a Desk department'), and key capabilities. This distinguishes it from sibling Desk tools like desk_get_entity_fields or desk_get_entity_timeline, which are retrieval-specific.

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 includes 'Prerequisites' (Department ID and entity type), 'Common Patterns' (ticket management, contact lookup, account discovery), and 'Next Steps' (use desk_get_entity_timeline), giving clear context on when and how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative search tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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