Search Super Productivity tasks

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns task IDs, a behavioral detail not present in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose limitations like default source or matching behavior, so it is better than minimal but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the primary search behavior and return type but omits details about search scope (source, includeDone) and pagination limit. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It only clarifies that query relates to title and projectId to project, while completely ignoring source, includeDone, and limit. This is insufficient compensation for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function: searching for tasks by title or project. It also specifies the output (task IDs), which distinguishes it from other read-only tools like list_today or get_current_task. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, earning full marks.

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 when you need to find tasks and obtain IDs for follow-up actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like list_today or plan_task_today. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls into implied usage.

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