Search Team Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context the schema can't convey — the team DB is a shared multi-tenant domain and cross-project leakage is a real risk. It does not cover pagination behavior or what happens if project_number is omitted despite the 'MUST' language.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then prerequisite, then the highest-risk constraint. The emoji warning styling is mildly noisy but the content behind it earns its place for a multi-tenant search.

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 10-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers purpose, environment prerequisite, and the key isolation requirement. Gaps remain around pagination/sorting defaults and the required-vs-optional discrepancy on project_number, which an agent could trip over.

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 coverage is only 30% (10 params, 3 described), so the description must compensate. It does explain what query/tags do and turns project_number into a semantic isolation requirement, but leaves limit, fuzzy_match, auto_correct, include_archived, and cursor unexplained, and never reconciles the 'MUST specify project_number' claim with the schema marking zero required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search entries in the team database') plus the two search axes (text and/or tags), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like team_create_entry. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as team_semantic_search or team_search_by_date_range, so the agent must infer which search variant applies.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite (TEAM_DB_PATH) and a hard usage constraint (must specify project_number to isolate results to a project). It stops short of naming alternatives — nothing tells the agent when to prefer search_entries, semantic_search, or team_search_by_date_range instead.

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