Search Entities

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load and it delivers: read-only LIKE query per type, matches grouped by entity type, and the key performance trait that a LIKE scan reads every row. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or result ordering, so it isn't exhaustive.

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 the core action, then scope, then the narrowing caveat and the scope exclusion. Four short paragraphs, each carrying distinct information; slightly verbose but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out (though grouping is described anyway). Given zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description covers most of what an agent needs, with the undocumented limit as the main shortfall.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for entity_types (example values, why to narrow it) and implies query, but the limit parameter and its default are never mentioned, leaving a real gap for a 3-param tool.

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 (substring search) and resource (entity titles/names) and enumerates exactly what is scanned: node titles, user names and emails, taxonomy term names, comment subjects, media and file names. It distinguishes itself from full-text search siblings by explicitly bounding scope to titles/names rather than bodies.

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 (substring matching across entity labels), when-not (does not search node bodies), and names concrete alternatives (the site's own search or the search_api tools). It also advises narrowing entity_types on large sites, a usage condition an agent can act on.

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