aura_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 behavioral burden. It discloses parallel aggregation and a 'Free only' filter, but does not explain what 'free' means, what happens if no free results exist, whether authentication is required, or what the return shape looks like.

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 definition is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but the phrasing itself is efficient.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should carry much more information for an agent to call it correctly. It gives only aggregate scope and a vague 'Free only' constraint, leaving return format, usage context, and parameter behavior unaddressed.

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?

There are two parameters (limit and query) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning for either. It does not mention how limit is applied or what query matches. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 aggregate resource scope: one call across components, skills, assets, and design systems. It distinguishes itself from the individual search siblings by naming all four resource types and the parallel behavior, though it does not explicitly say 'search' or name which sibling to use instead.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this aggregate tool versus the individual aura_search_* siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only constraint-like phrase is 'Free only,' which is ambiguous and does not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate.

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