everything_search

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return behavior ('total' tells you whether to narrow, folders end with '\', details=false returns bare paths) and that name sort is instant, but never states the operation is read-only, nor covers rate limits, errors, or index-staleness caveats.

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-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then a tight per-parameter legend with zero filler. Dense but every line earns its place; only minor cost is the legend-style layout.

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?

For a 9-parameter, annotation-free, output-schema-free tool, the description covers the query dialect and the most-used flags well, but leaves four parameters and all safety/response-envelope details to inference. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains query (with syntax examples), limit range, three sort values, details, and match_path, but leaves offset, regex, match_case, and whole_word entirely undocumented — roughly half the parameters carry no semantics anywhere.

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 resource ('Search file and folder names across every drive and network folder Everything indexes'). The 'names' scope implicitly separates it from everything_semantic_search, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the sort guidance ('date_modified_desc for "latest"', 'size_desc for "largest"') gestures toward everything_recent/everything_largest, and 'An empty query matches everything (use with filters)' gives one concrete tip. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative.

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