search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain that it searches matching leads, contacts, and companies, but it does not mention read-only status, result ordering or grouping, pagination behavior, or how mixed entity types are returned. The min-length constraint is stated, but other behavioral limits are left to the schema.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Universal search across amoCRM') and then specifies entity types and the minimum query length. There is no filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause adds useful information.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what is searched, the required query length, and the general scope. The main gap is the lack of any return-value description, since there is no output schema, but the result shape of a universal search is reasonably inferable.

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 both query and limit with meaningful descriptions. The tool description only repeats the query min-length constraint and adds no additional semantic value for either parameter, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 names a specific action ('search'), a scope ('across amoCRM'), and a clear resource set ('leads, contacts, and companies'). This distinctly differentiates it from the entity-specific list_*/get_* sibling tools.

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 word 'Universal' implies this is the cross-entity search tool, and 'finds leads, contacts, and companies' suggests its scope. However, it never explicitly states when to use this over list_leads/list_contacts/list_companies or when not to use it, so the guidance is mostly implicit.

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