cross_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied read-only), returns separate result arrays, and mentions the limit constraint (max 100). However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then parameter explanations, then return format. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words. The bullet-point style for Args and Returns enhances readability without sacrificing conciseness.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and return format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning performance characteristics or result ordering.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'query' (required search query), 'type' (limit to documents/emails or both), and 'limit' (max results per type with default and maximum). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify the exact format for the 'type' parameter values.

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 purpose with specific verb ('Search') and resources ('documents AND emails simultaneously'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_documents' (documents only) and 'search_persons' (different resource). It explicitly mentions full-text search capability.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (searching across both documents and emails) and includes guidance on the 'type' parameter to limit to specific resource types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'search_persons'.

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