search

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose return format, pagination, search behavior (e.g., fuzzy matching, case sensitivity), or any limitations. Fails to carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words; every part is information-dense.

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?

Lacks details on return structure, which is critical since no output schema exists. Also missing search behavior details (e.g., exact match vs full-text, boolean operators). Incomplete for a general search tool in a rich ecosystem.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying the search scope ('by name or note content') for the query parameter, which is not in the schema. The limit parameter is adequately described in the schema, so the description contributes moderately.

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 clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'all OmniFocus items' (tasks, projects, folders, tags) and includes the search scope 'by name or note content'. It distinguishes this general search from specific sibling tools like get_task or get_project.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task, get_project, or get_flagged_tasks. Lacks context on preferred scenarios.

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