Search everything

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuine value beyond them: ranking semantics, the one-row-per-authority collapse with alsoMatched children, offset-based paging, and browse-vs-rank mode when query is omitted. With no output schema, this result-shape disclosure matters, though per-row fields and the presence of a nextOffset field are only implied.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core identity before the when-to-use rationale and the result/ paging shape. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler despite the em-dash-heavy style.

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?

For a search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description supplies what structured data cannot: ranking behavior, row grouping, and pagination. It could go one step further by naming the fields each row returns or clarifying the nextOffset response field it references only indirectly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description largely restates it — verbatim quoted phrases, omitting query to browse, paging with offset. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds emphasis but no new syntax or constraint information.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a single ranked search spanning saved authorities, saved quotations, and captured source text. It names the scope of corpora covered and distinguishes itself from narrower siblings like search_cases and search_quotes by emphasizing the union across all three kinds.

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?

"Start here when you do not already know which of those holds the answer" gives a clear selection condition, and the note that captured source text is otherwise reachable only by a known document id justifies the tool's niche. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to search_cases or search_quotes when the kind is already known.

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