search_global_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the qualifier 'accessible by the token' which clarifies access scope, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose pagination, result limits, or any potential side effects, though these are partially covered by the schema and output schema.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core functionality.

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 the high schema coverage and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the high-level purpose. It might be slightly sparse but adequately contextualizes the tool for an agent given the structured information elsewhere.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (schema_description_coverage=100%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already covers search, scope, page, and per_page adequately.

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 'Search across all GitLab resources accessible by the token' clearly states the tool performs a global search using a search verb with a specific resource scope ('all GitLab resources'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search_project_tool by explicitly targeting across all resources, implying a global vs project-scoped distinction.

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 description implies global usage but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks directives like 'use this when you need to search across multiple projects' or contrast with search_project_tool, so usage guidance is only inferred from the word 'all'.

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