search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only lists data types searched but doesn't disclose whether it returns snippets, limits on results, ranking behavior, or how results are grouped/organized. For a broad search tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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 is a single concise sentence that names the tool function and enumerates the data categories it covers. No waste, appropriately sized for a search tool. It could optionally mention result format, but the current length is justified given the simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description names the covered data types. However, without an output schema, describing how results are presented (grouped by entity type, unified list, count, etc.) would improve completeness. The breadth of data types covered makes the absence of result-format info a noticeable gap.

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% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema handles parameter documentation adequately. The description adds the context that the search spans multiple data types but doesn't add query syntax details (wildcards, operators, phrase search). With complete schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a full-text search tool across all data types (pages, workflows, endpoints, fields, tables, etc.). It has a specific verb (search) and resource (all data categories). While it distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all get_ retrieval functions, it doesn't explicitly differentiate how its scope compares to potential non-sibling search tools.

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 'all data' scope implies a broad applicability, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative tools. The siblings are all specific get_ retrieval tools, so search is implied as the discovery entry point, but this isn't stated. Some guidance on how to navigate from search results to specific get_ tools would strengthen this.

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