search_entities_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (count, results, domains), states the search scope (IDs, names, attributes), and mentions the lack of wildcard support. It does not reveal case-sensitivity or pagination, but overall provides adequate behavioral transparency for a read-only search tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and uses concise language. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed, though minor redundancy exists in examples. Overall efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete coverage of parameters and return structure. It addresses the query behavior and limits, and notes a key limitation (no wildcards). It lacks details on matching semantics (exact vs partial) and ordering, but is sufficient for typical use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It adds detailed meaning for both parameters: query explanation includes matching scope and wildcard limitation with alternative, and limit explains its purpose and default value. This significantly aids correct parameter usage.

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 tool searches for entities matching a query string. It differentiates from the sibling tool list_entities by explicitly noting that to get all entities, one can leave query blank or use list_entities. This distinguishes from other entity-related 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 description provides context on when to use the tool, specifically when a query string is available. It gives an alternative (list_entities) for listing all entities and notes that wildcards are not supported. Examples illustrate common use cases, but it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare with other search-oriented siblings like get_entities_by_area.

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