fm_global_search_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the OR search behavior and performance implications (important for a search tool), but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what the aggregated results look like. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by implementation details and a performance warning. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value: purpose, search behavior, and important constraint.

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 search tool with 3 parameters (including a nested options object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the cross-layout scope and performance warning well, but doesn't address authentication, error conditions, or result format. Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, it should do more.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'text fields' which aligns with the searchText parameter but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 states the specific action ('search data across multiple layouts'), resource ('text fields in layouts'), and scope ('OR search across layouts, aggregating results'). It distinguishes from siblings like fm_find_records (likely single-layout) and fm_global_search_fields (searching fields rather than data).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('search across multiple layouts') and includes a performance warning about specifying too many layouts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, though the context implies it's for cross-layout searches.

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