Search Trello

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation (search) and documents query capabilities with operator examples, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what access scope applies, or how results are returned/paginated, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the resource scope, the second gives operational syntax examples. The most important information (what it searches and how to form queries) is front-loaded.

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?

The parameter semantics are well covered by the schema, and the description conveys the search scope, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape or grouping of the returned results (e.g., whether boards and cards are returned separately or how match counts are presented). For a 6-parameter search tool, this is a notable gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic value for the key `query` parameter by giving concrete Trello search operator examples (@member, #label, list:name, is:open, is:archived). It does not repeat or contradict the schema; it enhances it.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resources ('boards and cards in Trello'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_board_cards (list cards for a known board) and search_members (search members rather than boards/cards). The scope is unambiguous.

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 the search use case via the verb and operator syntax, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over list_boards, get_board_cards, or search_members, nor does it state any exclusions. An agent can infer intent but is given no direct routing guidance.

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