search_global_section_elements

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It adds that results are filtered rather than a full dump, which is useful, but says nothing about truncation at the default limit of 50, result ordering, or what a returned element contains. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the purpose and its rationale come first, the available filters second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 should ideally characterize the return (result shape, truncation behavior at limit=50, how to fetch a single element's full detail via get_global_section_element). It only hints at truncation via 'without dumping the whole tree'. For a 9-parameter read tool this is serviceable but leaves gaps.

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 every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description merely re-enumerates the same filter fields (type, id substring, custom_class, text, has_bind, has_events, has_custom_class) without adding syntax, matching semantics, or interaction rules between them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 pair (search/filter) and resource (elements within a global section), and adds the rationale 'without dumping the whole tree' which tells the agent this is the targeted-query option rather than a full-tree read. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as search_global_source_elements or list_elements, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'without dumping the whole tree' implies the usage context (prefer this over enumerating everything), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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