search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful fact — the required read:projects scope — but says nothing about matching semantics, default result count, ordering, truncation, or what a result record looks like for each of the four entity types.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded before the permission note. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly the cause of the coverage gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

For a 3-parameter search with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot know how to format `types`, what the default limit is, or what shape the mixed-entity results take.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain q, limit, and types. It only obliquely hints at `types` through the enumeration of entity types and says nothing about the query string syntax or the limit's default/ceiling, leaving all three parameters undocumented.

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 enumerates the four resources it covers (projects, tasks, clients, entries), which is meaningfully distinct from the single-resource list_* siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with list_projects or list_time_entries, but the cross-entity scope does the differentiating work.

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?

"needs read:projects" gives a prerequisite scope hint, and the multi-type coverage implies this is the tool for cross-entity lookup rather than enumerated listing. However, it never states when to prefer this over list_projects/list_tasks/list_clients, nor when it should not be used.

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