search_entities

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Search' and does not disclose behavior such as matching semantics, result limits, pagination, case sensitivity, or whether all matches are returned. This is thin behavioral disclosure for a discovery tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler and earns its place efficiently.

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?

The tool has all-optional parameters, fully documented schema, and an output schema, so an agent can construct a valid call from the structured information. The main gap is lack of guidance about when to choose search_entities over get_entity or nrql_query, but for basic invocation the provided context is sufficient.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a meaningful description including examples and formatting hints. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, but the schema already handles that burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search for New Relic entities') and gives concrete examples of entity types. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely related get_entity tool, though the plural 'entities' and 'Search' strongly imply broad lookup versus direct retrieval.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_entity or nrql_query. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended filter strategies, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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