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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds two non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: results are scoped to authorized resources, and an empty query returns recent tasks/projects rather than nothing.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary purpose comes first and the empty-query edge case is stated compactly in the second sentence.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description covers purpose, match semantics, and empty-input behavior. It does not describe result ordering or pagination, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load for the single required parameter. It explains what 'query' matches (title or task reference) and the meaning of an empty value, which is real semantic content not present in the schema.

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 concrete verb ('Find') plus a specific resource ('authorized projects and tasks') and the matching mechanism ('by title or task reference'). That is enough to distinguish it from list-style siblings like get_tasks or show_tasks, though it does not explicitly name an alternative to route against.

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 by the search semantics and the empty-query note, which tells the agent it can call with no criteria to get recents. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no alternative sibling named (e.g. find_related_resources).

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