search_entities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a full-text search returning basic metadata, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or the exact shape of returned data; it is not misleading or contradictory.

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 two short sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and scope immediately, and every clause contributes useful information.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable high-level summary: full-text search, entity results, basic metadata. However, it does not describe the return fields, pagination details, or how filters like spaceId and typeIds behave beyond what the schema already states, leaving a moderate gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, such as the effect of spaceId or typeIds, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: full-text search for entities in the Geo knowledge graph, and it notes that matching entities with basic metadata are returned. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_entities or get_entity; the phrase 'full-text' implies query-based matching rather than listing or direct retrieval.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'full-text search' — an agent can infer this is for query-based entity lookup rather than listing all entities. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over list_entities or get_entity.

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