Search: audit

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already declaring the safety profile, the description adds meaningful non-annotation behavior: it runs two searches (public and signed-in), samples 5 by default, and deliberately ends with an error when a leak is found. The error-on-detection behavior is the kind of non-obvious trait annotations do not convey.

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 purpose and leak-flagging are front-loaded, then execution behavior, then the fix pointer. The long middle sentence listing what gets reported is dense but earns its place; the trailing 'Returns JSON' is terse rather than wasteful given no output schema exists.

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 no output schema, the description does double duty by summarizing what the report contains (leaked fields plus missing marked fields) and noting the error-on-leak exit. Defaults for query and sample are covered, leaving only the exact JSON shape unspecified.

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 all three parameters are already documented including the `*` and sample=5 defaults. The description largely restates those defaults, adding only the 'for one entity' scoping clarification, so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare configured public-searchable fields against what public search actually returns, and flags leaks. It clearly distinguishes itself from search_query/search_similar siblings by being a diagnostic leak audit rather than a data-retrieval search.

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 clear context for when to run the audit (verifying public search exposure) and routes remediation by naming `fields_update` as the fix tool. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or how it differs operationally from `search_query`, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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