global_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states that it searches across entities. It does not mention result format, grouping, pagination, limits, or matching semantics (e.g., partial vs exact match). This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core functionality and the covered entity types. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a search tool. It does not explain what the response looks like (e.g., a unified list, grouped by entity type), any search limitations, or how the query is interpreted. The tool is simple in parameters but behaviorally non-trivial, and the description leaves too much 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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'query' parameter with the description 'Search query', so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning, such as query syntax, wildcards, or expected length. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search across all entities' with a specific list of entity types. This verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from the many entity-specific listers among sibling tools. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 phrase 'across all entities' conveys a clear context: use this tool when needing to find something without knowing which entity type it belongs to, as opposed to using a specific tool like list_clients or list_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the higher bar of explicit exclusions.

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