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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals important search behavior: case-insensitive substring matching, no regex support, cross-board scope, and inclusion of finished tasks. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the behavioral caveat and the pointer to the alternative tool. Every sentence adds value with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple read-only search tool with only two parameters, both fully schema-documented, and annotations covering safety. The description supplies the essential behavioral constraints and sibling routing, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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 100%, with both 'query' and 'limit' already documented in the input schema. The description adds some contextual meaning by naming the searched fields, but it does not materially change parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('tasks'), and precisely scopes the search by fields ('id, title, notes or tags'), scope ('across every board'), and inclusion ('finished ones included'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like task_list and task_update.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool for free-text substring matching and directs the agent to task_list for structured filters. It also gives a concrete exclusion ('never a regex'), leaving little ambiguity about selection.

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