todo_search

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with a search operation, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds matching semantics (case-insensitive, which fields are searched), but omits notable behavior: the default status filter of 'open' and any pagination/limit behavior, which materially affect results.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key matching semantics front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too spare given the undocumented parameters.

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 no output schema, three parameters at 0% description coverage, and a non-obvious default status filter, the description leaves real gaps an agent needs before calling it correctly.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains what 'query' matches against, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about 'limit' or the 'status' enum whose default is 'open' — a filter that silently narrows results without the agent knowing.

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 (substring search) plus resource and match semantics (case-insensitive, over slugs and prompts), which is more than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling todo_list, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus todo_list or when a substring search is preferable to listing. The only implied usage is 'you have a query string', with no exclusions or alternatives named.

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