Search: query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that `public` hits the unauthenticated endpoint returning only public-marked fields, and that filter expressions support operators. 'Returns JSON' is thin, and there is no mention of pagination limits or behavior when nothing matches.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the capability list, then the sibling routing – every clause carries information and none is filler. The middle sentence is dense and semi-colon-stacked, which slightly hurts scanability, but nothing is wasted.

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 say it returns JSON, and it covers filtering, sorting, facets, highlighting, entity scoping and the public/anonymous mode for a 9-parameter tool. It is close to complete, though return-shape and paging behavior are left to the schema fields.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning with a concrete filter example ('status=published AND category=news'), the wildcard/browse convention for `text`, and the anonymous-visitor semantics of `public`. It does not, however, explain `facet` or `highlight` beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Run a search query ... searches the search index') and immediately scopes it to indexed entities or a named subset. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `data_list` (exact field-value lookups) and `search_rehydrate` (missing indexed records), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Provides concrete routing rules: use `data_list` to list one entity's records by exact field values, use `search_rehydrate` when indexed records are missing, and use `*` to browse instead of searching. It also explains the `public` option's semantics (searching as an anonymous visitor), which tells the agent when to prefer it.

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