alga_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail by explaining the pagination loop ('pass the returned nextCursor as cursor'), but says nothing about result shape, ordering, or how many types are scanned, which matters for a federated search.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the pagination mechanics appended. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and results spanning ~30 heterogeneous record types, the definition is thin on what comes back — no indication of whether results are grouped by type, whether they share a common shape, or how relevance ordering behaves. Pagination is the one behavioral detail covered, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent planning to consume mixed-type 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 only 20% (only 'types' is documented), so the description should compensate more than it does. It does explain the cursor round-trip against the returned nextCursor, and the remaining parameters (sort enum, limit with default/min/max, short query string) are largely self-documenting primitives in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('search across record types at once') and the phrase 'at once' implicitly distinguishes it from the many single-type siblings such as alga_tickets_search and alga_contacts_search. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

'Use when you don't know the record type' is a concrete selection condition that tells the agent when this tool wins over a typed search. No exclusion or explicit named alternative is given, which keeps it out of the top band.

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