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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that expired recordings are never returned, that matching is semantic and language-dependent, and that results are ranked. This goes beyond basic operation, though it could specify the return shape more precisely.

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 a single paragraph that is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then filters. It's longer than average but every sentence contributes, covering rationale, filters, and caveats.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains ranking and expired exclusion, but doesn't describe result format. It covers language nuances and filter semantics, making it fairly complete for a search tool.

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 only 17% (taskName). The description explains all optional filters: taskName substring matching, mine's behavior, createdAfter/Before ISO timestamps, and limit. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail the query parameter's constraints.

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 it finds recordings by meaning and wording, and explicitly contrasts with list_tasks, which searches only your own uploads. This differentiates it from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says to use it before inventing a new TASK value, and it notes that unlike list_tasks, it searches all project members' recordings unless 'mine' is passed. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not guidance.

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