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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: case-insensitive plain substring, never a regex, and that finished tasks and all boards are included. It does not say anything about result ordering or how limit truncation interacts with matches, which keeps it off 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The matching behavior and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling routing note is placed last as a decision aid.

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 two-parameter read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description covers search semantics and alternatives well. The only omission is result shape/ordering, but with no output schema this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it specifies that query is matched against id, title, notes and tags and that matching is a case-insensitive substring rather than a regex. The limit parameter is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Find tasks") and defines the matching fields (id, title, notes, tags) plus scope (every board, finished included). It explicitly contrasts with task_list, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening a schema.

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 names the alternative explicitly — "Use task_list for structured filters" — which tells the agent exactly when to pick the other tool. Combined with the free-text matching semantics, the usage boundary is unambiguous.

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