search_entities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Search projects, portfolios, or goals' with no disclosure of search behavior, pagination, output format, or any side effects. This provides no meaningful transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and an output schema. It lacks structural detail and seems more a placeholder than an appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, required entity_type, output schema) and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain search semantics, pagination, or any context beyond the bare resource scope, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions, which already fully document each parameter.

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 action (search) and the target resources (projects, portfolios, or goals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_issues and search_worklog, which target different entity types.

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 usage for searching these entity types but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.

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