searchAll

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the mixed-content breadth but does not disclose pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether all content types are searched by default. For a simple read-only search tool this is acceptable, though not richly transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling recommendations occupy the second sentence without bloating the description.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's job. Annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior. The description provides scope, content types, and sibling routing. It could mention default type behavior or pagination, but for a mixed-content search tool the definition is fairly complete.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for the required searchQuery as 'free text' and clarifies the content types in plain language, but it provides no additional guidance for limit, offset, or projectId beyond the schema. This is partial compensation rather than full.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search by free text') and a concrete resource ('mixed Redmine content'), enumerates the content types, and explicitly names sibling tools it is not (searchIssues, searchWikiPages). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.

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 gives clear routing guidance: use searchIssues for richer issue-only results and searchWikiPages for wiki-only discovery. This explicitly tells an agent when to prefer alternatives over searchAll, which is exactly the kind of decision support this dimension rewards.

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