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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the meaningful detail that matching happens across title and description, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. token), ordering, result limits, or the default status behavior — all relevant for a search tool with no output schema.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool. It is efficient rather than padded, though it could carry one more clause (e.g., matching behavior) at no cost to brevity.

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 simple read tool with two well-described parameters and a read-only annotation, the essentials are covered. Missing are the return-shape-adjacent details an agent would want — whether results are ranked or truncated, and whether status defaults to filtering anything out.

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%, so both parameters are self-documenting, but the description still adds real meaning by specifying which task fields the 'query' string is matched against — information the schema's 'Search text' label does not convey. The status enum is left to the schema, which is adequate.

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 (search) and resource (tasks) plus the searched fields (title or description), which clearly separates it from enumeration tools like taskhold_list or single-retrieval taskhold_get. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for text lookup versus taskhold_list for browsing, but the description never says when to prefer one over the other or what to do if the text query yields nothing.

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