locations_task_search

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which signal safety, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of tasks), how pagination works, or any constraints (e.g., that locationId defaults to the authenticated location). Given the annotations already cover read-only behavior, the description's complete lack of additional behavioral disclosure keeps this low.

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 under-specified, not concise in a useful way. It is a three-word fragment that provides no information while consuming space. Effective conciseness means every sentence earns its place; here, the entire description fails to convey any meaningful instruction, making it inadequate rather than economical.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain the return format, the semantics of the filters, or how the tool fits into the broader workflow. The annotations cover safety but not functionality, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool correctly or interpret results.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable since the schema is comprehensive. However, it could have added contextual meaning (e.g., that 'query' is a free-text search), but it does not, so no bonus is granted.

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 'Task Search Filter' is a vague fragment that restates the tool name 'locations_task_search' without adding any specific action, resource, or scope. It does not say what tasks are being searched (e.g., for contacts, locations) or what the filter does, and it fails to distinguish this tool from other search tools like contacts_search_contacts_advanced or opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative search tools. The description provides no context about scenarios (e.g., searching tasks by query, filtering by completion status) or exclusions. An agent gets no help in deciding to choose this over the many sibling search tools available.

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