Search everything

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the 50-result cap, the pagination signal in the response, and the response shape ('12 found: 7 notes, 3 tasks, 2 blocks') — real behavioral detail an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then mechanics, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat run-on with comma-spliced sentences, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no filler.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does: counts-by-type header, 50-per-page limit, and the pagination signal. Combined with the refinement loop, an agent has everything needed to call and re-call 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning: page is only used when the answer says there are more, and type is a refinement step taken after seeing counts. That is more than the schema's static field descriptions convey.

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?

States a specific verb and a precisely scoped resource: 'every record of every content type and every block on the canvas.' The scope statement ('anything the person has') cleanly distinguishes this from narrower siblings like find_records or get_record without needing to name them.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('before saying something does not exist', 'to find the id of a thing they mention') and a follow-up pattern ('search again with type to see only that kind'). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives such as find_records or look, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exhaustive.

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