Typeahead

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond that: returns up to 100 compact results, results are ordered by relevance (recency for projects, contact frequency for users), and the tip about opt_fields for emails. This meaningfully supplements the annotation-only safety profile.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral/parameter tips. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 moderately complex tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core return shape ('compact results with gid and name'), the primary use case, and ordering behavior. It omits edge cases like empty results or error handling, but given the simple read-only nature and explicit annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 covers all parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds concrete guidance beyond the schema: 'For users, include opt_fields: 'gid,name,email'' and gives an example of using the query parameter. This enriches parameter understanding beyond mere field definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and names the resource ('Asana objects') with explicit types listed. It clearly defines the scope ('by partial name') and distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the GID-lookup tool ('find the GID of a resource when you only know its name').

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when you need a resource's GID from a name, with a concrete example ('find a task called 'Fix login bug''). It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the 'Use this to...' phrasing gives clear context that this is a lightweight lookup, contrasting with the more specialized search tools among siblings.

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