Freelo Search Elasticsearch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of entities searched but does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, query syntax semantics, or any Elasticsearch-specific quirks.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose and entity scope are front-loaded, making the tool immediately understandable.

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?

The input schema is thoroughly documented, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance for choosing this tool over sibling retrieval tools, but for a read-only search tool the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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%, with every parameter including nested searchData fields already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Performs full-text search'), identifies the resource ('across Freelo'), and enumerates the searched entity types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific objects by ID or filter.

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 this is the tool for cross-entity full-text search, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling getters like freelo_get_tasks_by_filter_uuid or individual retrieval tools. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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