search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return payload (matching entity_ids with latest source-backed values and collection status), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about pagination (limit default/max), ranking, permissions, or rate limits, leaving real gaps for a search endpoint.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the return summary follows immediately.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does the job of explaining what comes back (entity_ids, latest values, collection status), which is the critical missing piece. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or how to act on results, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 67%: query and jurisdiction are documented in the schema, limit is not. The description adds an example of free-text phrasing that the schema does not, which helps clarify query semantics (service and/or country terms), but it adds nothing about limit or jurisdiction scoping. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (tracked government processing-time routes) plus a concrete example query, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_entity or compare_values, but the search-vs-retrieve distinction is inferable from the wording.

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 shows an example query format ('canada study permit pakistan'), which implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_entity, get_latest_value, or compare_values, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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