search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses matching semantics (case-insensitive substring across three fields), what the response contains (name, category, module), and the composite-entity exclusion. It says nothing about result caps or how the limit parameter affects output, and does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the matching behaviour and immediately followed by the downstream consumer and the key exclusion. The examples ('customer', 'AccountsReceivable') clarify the query format without padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in depth, and the description still summarizes them. The one real omission is limit behaviour/pagination, which matters for an agent deciding how many results it will get.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does this well for query, spelling out the substring matching fields and giving example terms, but the limit parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.

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 (DMF entity catalogue) plus exactly which fields are matched (entity name, target entity, module) and how (case-insensitive substring). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_entity_fields and list_project_entities, which are about fields and project scope rather than catalogue lookup.

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?

Explicitly frames the result as input for import_data and warns that composite entities ('X composite') are not importable here, which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where the entity already lives in a project (e.g. list_project_entities), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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