search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by scoping the search to tasks and projects and specifying the result fields, going slightly beyond the structured annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a relevant output summary. Every sentence contributes meaning and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 low parameter count, read-only annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly defines scope and result contents, though it does not mention result limits, ordering, or any search syntax nuances, but these are not critical for this simple search tool.

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?

The single query parameter has 100% schema description coverage and a clear explanation ('The search query string to find tasks and projects'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the target resources ('tasks and projects in Todoist') plus the return shape ('IDs, titles, and URLs'). It distinguishes itself from more specialized find-* siblings by indicating a broad cross-resource 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling find-tasks, find-projects, or find-completed-tasks tools. Whether this should be preferred over those alternatives for unstructured queries is left completely implicit.

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