search_global

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the search is global and matches by name or @username, which is additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose nuances like partial matching, pagination, or result ordering, so the added transparency is limited.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. Every word contributes meaning, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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 straightforward search tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers what is searched and by what criteria. The absence of limit details is a minor gap, but the parameter name and default make it self-explanatory. Overall, the description is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

Since the input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a name or @username, giving that parameter clear semantics. However, 'limit' is left unexplained; its purpose (max number of results) is only implied by its name and default value, leading to incomplete compensation.

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 identifies the action ('global search'), the resource type (users/chats/channels), and the search criterion (name or @username). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_messages (which searches message content) and resolve_username (which resolves exact usernames), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 finding peers by name or username but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like resolve_username or search_messages, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but there is no explicit guidance on alternative selection.

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