entity_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by stating what the search returns, how minimal_output changes the response, and the default/maximum limit. It does not disclose tag matching semantics (AND vs OR) or error behavior, but the core behavioral contract is visible.

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 starts with the core purpose, then states returnv alues and usage tips. Every sentence adds relevant operational detail, though some sentences repeat schema metadata (e.g., default25/max200). It is concise enough and front-loaded, but a tighter version could omit duplicate schema facts.

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 flexible search tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decisions: what to search by, which domain/type values are valid, how to limit results, and how to reduce output. It does not describe the full response structure or result ordering, but the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema-provided information, such as domain values, type examples, default limit, and minimal_output behavior. It adds a little context by mapping domains to entity kinds (APM apps, hosts, synthetic monitors), but it does not significantly deepen the meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool searches for New Relic entities by name, type, domain, or tags, and specifies the returned data (GUIDs, alert severity, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entity (which likely fetches a single entity by GUID) and list_synthetic_monitors (which focuses on one domain). The verb 'Search' plus the filter dimensions give a precise purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: searching for entities across domains or by flexible filters such as name, tags, domain, or type. It also gives concrete usage guidance for domain, type, minimal_output, and limit. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use get_entity when you already have a GUID'), so it stops short of a 5.

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