Search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful authorization context beyond annotations: the required search:read scope and the preset conditions (fullPipeline included, assessmentRunner excluded). It stops short of describing return format or pagination.

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?

Two compact sentences, zero waste. The core capability is front-loaded and the scope prerequisite follows, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only search tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations and whose parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description covers purpose and authorization well. The only notable gap is that with no output schema it does not describe the shape of returned results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so q, kind (enum), and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource scope (orgs, domains, projects) with the mechanism (full-text). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name which siblings it supersedes, so an agent must infer the contrast with the entity-specific list/get 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?

It gives a prerequisite (requires search:read scope via fullPipeline preset, not in assessmentRunner) but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus siblings like air_list_domains or air_get_project. Usage is only implied by 'full-text search.'

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