search_all

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states it searches messages and files and that 'detailed=True' gives full response. Important traits like pagination, scope, or result structure are omitted, leaving significant gaps.

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 short (two sentences), but the brevity leads to under-specification. The first sentence is generic, and the second adds specific guidance for 'detailed'. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail, earning a borderline adequate score.

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 (8 parameters, many siblings, no annotations, output schema present), the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters interact, how results are returned, or when to use this tool over similar ones, making it insufficient for effective use.

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 should compensate but only mentions the 'detailed' parameter. The other seven parameters (query, count, highlight, page, sort, sort_dir, team_id) are completely unexplained, providing almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Search for messages and files' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_messages and search_files, which could lead to confusion about when to use this combined search versus the specific ones.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions the 'detailed' parameter but does not explain context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred over other search tools.

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