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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing relevance ordering (best match first), the default status inclusion, and a prompt-injection warning that returned text is user data rather than instructions.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the most important information first. The field list and relevance ordering come before the injection caveat, and no sentence is filler.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers query semantics and the status default well, and the annotations cover safety. However, 'Returns JSON' does not describe the response shape, and the limit parameter is entirely unaddressed, leaving gaps an agent might need.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains query semantics thoroughly (matches across title, description, attachment text, word order irrelevant) and implies status filtering, but says nothing about the limit parameter, leaving pagination behavior undocumented.

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 tasks) and goes further by naming the searched fields (title, description, attachment text), the match mode (any order, best match first), and the default status scope. It does not explicitly name a sibling like list_tasks to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Search ... by words" and "all statuses unless filtered" imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit routing guidance such as when to prefer list_tasks or get_task instead. The agent must infer the search-vs-list distinction from the verb alone.

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