search_all

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON array of matching items, specifies the default limit, and shows the return type. However, it does not mention potential side effects (though search is read-only), pagination, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence is useful, and there is no redundancy or wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 3 parameters and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and examples. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return fields. It could optionally mention pagination or sorting details, but the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds significant meaning: 'term' is a search term, 'item_types' is a comma-separated list of types with a default of all, and 'limit' is maximum results with a default of 100. This is very helpful beyond the bare 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 clearly states that the tool searches across all item types in Pipedrive and lists the specific types (deals, persons, organizations, products, files, activities, leads). It differentiates from sibling tools like search_deals or search_organizations by indicating it performs a cross-type search.

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 (cross-type search) and includes examples for searching all types or specific types. It implicitly suggests that for single-type searches, sibling tools should be used, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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