Search Tasks

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

Despite annotations already declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds substantial behavioral context: searches both names and descriptions, caps results at 100 with no auto-pagination, and returns minimal fields by default requiring opt_fields. These are critical runtime behaviors not inferable from annotations alone.

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 uses five short, non-redundant sentences. Each sentence carries unique information: purpose, search scope, result cap, filter selection guidance, and output field requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains 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?

Given the large parameter schema and rich annotations, the description supplies all missing high-level context: workspace-wide search semantics, searchable fields (names+descriptions), result limits, pagination absence, and default response shape. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by recommending specific filter parameters (projects_any, assignee_any, completed, due_on_before) and by emphasizing the opt_fields requirement, giving agents a strategic entry point into the 56-parameter surface.

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 opens with 'Full-text search for tasks across a workspace with advanced filters' and adds 'Searches task names AND descriptions,' making the verb, resource, and scope explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_search_projects and get_tasks_for_project by emphasizing workspace-wide full-text search.

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 provides clear operational guidance: 'Prefer filters like projects_any, assignee_any, completed, or due_on_before to narrow results' and 'Returns up to 100 results (no auto-pagination).' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use this tool, so it misses the 'explicit alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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