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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return payload (card ids, titles with board, links), which matters because no output schema exists. It omits result limits, pagination, and match semantics, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the search scope front-loaded before the return-value summary. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it covers scope, match fields, and return shape. Only pagination/result-cap behavior and differentiation from search_tasks are 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 coverage is 100% and the schema only says 'What to look for.', so the description meaningfully extends it by specifying that the query matches text in card title and description. That is real added semantics beyond the schema's vague phrasing.

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 (searches) and resource (cards), and pins the scope precisely: open and completed cards across every board the user can access, matching text in title and description. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling search_tasks, leaving the agent to guess which search tool applies.

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 says what is searched but not when to choose this tool over search_tasks or list_my_tasks, and lists no prerequisites or exclusions. Scope information is present, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named.

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