search_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Search' without indicating that the operation is read-only, its impact (e.g., no destructive actions), or any auth/rate-limit considerations. The pagination parameters hint at behavior but are not elaborated in text.

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 extremely short (4 words), which is concise but lacks necessary content. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place by providing critical context. A slightly longer description with more detail would be more effective without being verbose.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the types of resources searched, the result structure, or how it differs from sibling tools like search_companies. The agent would need additional context to use it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description 'Search across all resource types' adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already explains query, start_index, and items_per_page, the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Search across all resource types' clearly specifies the verb 'Search' and the resource 'all resource types'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific types like companies or officers, indicating it is a general-purpose search. However, it lacks detail on what 'all resource types' includes, slightly reducing specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It implies broad use but does not state when not to use it or mention specific siblings like search_companies or search_officers. This omission makes it hard for an agent to decide when this tool is preferable.

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