Search boards

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only plus adds non-obvious behavior: matching ignores case and accents, and results are capped at 30 hits per board. It does not mention pagination or truncation beyond that cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Three tight sentences ordered scope → matching/return behavior → usage routing. No filler and the distinguishing information 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: per-board title and id plus up to 30 hits with ids. Combined with scope and routing, an agent has everything needed to call this 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% for the single 'query' parameter and the schema already documents substring matching that ignores case and accents. The description's matching note duplicates the schema rather than adding new syntax or format guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (search text across all boards) and enumerates the searched fields (titles, nodes, notes, shapes, tables, sections, connector labels, comments). It explicitly distinguishes itself from read_board, so the agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives both when-to-use ('find which board talks about something') and the alternative with its condition ('use read_board to see one board in full'). This is explicit routing guidance against a named sibling.

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