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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by warning that results include tasks other AIsa callers created in the shared workspace, which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. It also lists return fields (tasks, pagination, breadcrumbs, faceting, pipeline_total), which helps set expectations.

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 sentences with useful information: the action, the return shape, and a critical shared-workspace warning. The warning is front-loaded after the action. No wasted words, though the emoji is slightly informal.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the key behavioral context (shared workspace, result scope) and the annotations cover safety. For a search tool with 0 required parameters, this is reasonably complete. It could mention pagination defaults, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover the basics.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Search tasks in this workspace') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_apollo_tasks (create) and post_apollo_tasks_bulk_create. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the scope is clear enough to differentiate from other task-related tools.

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 implies usage context: searching tasks in the current workspace. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like post_apollo_contacts_search or post_apollo_opportunities_search, but the resource is clear. The shared workspace warning adds context about scope but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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