search_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description confirms a filter/sort search but adds no behavioral detail beyond that — no pagination semantics, result ordering defaults, or result-shape context, which is modest value for a search tool.

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 the action and resource, then filtering capability, then the entityType clarification. No filler or redundancy.

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 9-parameter search with a nested filter object and no output schema, the description covers purpose and entityType but says nothing about return values, pagination, or default ordering. The rich schema compensates for parameters, but the absence of output schema leaves return behavior unexplained.

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 nine parameters are already documented in the schema, making the baseline 3. The description adds only a marginal semantic gloss on entityType values and does not clarify the nested filter object or sorting behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 set ("Search projects, portfolios or goals") that clearly scopes it to entity search rather than the many issue-oriented search siblings like find_issues or get_search_suggest. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the resource scope does the differentiating work.

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 guidance on parameter values (entityType "goal" for OKR goals, "portfolio" for project portfolios), which helps selection, but offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as find_issues. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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