kaiten_search_cards

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is a summary set with a cursor, and pagination requires resubmitting identical filters. No mention of result limits or filtering semantics, so not 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before pagination and the sibling pointer. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not owed, but an 18-parameter filter tool with zero schema descriptions needs the description to compensate and it does not. An agent knows how to paginate but not how to construct any of the filters.

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% across 18 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to explain any of them (asap, states, overdue, lane_id, due_date_after, etc.). It references a "next_cursor" while the actual parameter is named "cursor", which could actively mislead about the field name.

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 cards with filters") and explicitly delimits scope by noting it returns summaries rather than full records. It also names the sibling kaiten_get_card for detail retrieval, making the distinction from that tool clear.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: reuse the same filters with the cursor for pagination, and use kaiten_get_card when full details are needed. It stops short of stating when-not to use this tool or how it relates to the many other list_* siblings, but the core routing guidance is present.

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