search_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new chaining context beyond the annotations: the returned GUID is the key for get_entity, logs and alert lookups, which tells the agent how this call fits into a workflow.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists so return shape need not be described, and the description still supplies the one output detail that matters for chaining (the GUID). For a six-parameter, all-optional search tool with rich annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 83% and the schema itself documents LIKE matching for name, exact tag semantics, cursor pagination and enum-like domain/entity_type values. The description only restates name/type/tag and adds nothing about the cursor, domain or account_id parameters, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (find) and resource (entities) and enumerates the concrete entity kinds (services, hosts, lambdas, browsers) plus the match keys (name, type, tag). The second sentence positions it against the sibling get_entity by explaining it is the entry point when only a name is known.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('start here when you only know a service name') and names the downstream alternative (get_entity) that consumes its output, which is strong routing guidance. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g. when a GUID or an NRQL query is already available).

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