Search cards across all boards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses result ordering (number, title, label, description, then recency), exclusions (archived cards and closed lists), the default/max limit, the per-board numbering caveat, and a degraded-mode fallback to the last on-disk export when the desktop app is closed. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the matching rule, then result shape, ordering, exclusions, and the follow-up tool — a logical order with no filler. It is dense to the point of being a single semicolon-chained block, which slightly hurts scanability for a two-parameter tool, but no sentence is expendable.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating every returned field and matchKind values, plus ordering and exclusion rules. Combined with the fallback behavior and the next-step pointer, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results 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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it defines `limit` semantics (default 50, max 100) and fully explains `query` behavior including substring matching fields and the `#142`/`142` numeric form. It also warns that numbers are per board and to check boardName, which is a semantic trap the schema cannot express.

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 and resource ('Global card search') plus the exact matching rule (case-insensitive substring on title, description, label name). It is clearly distinguished from siblings like kanbini_get_card, which it explicitly routes to for full detail.

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?

Names the follow-up path explicitly ('Use cardId with kanbini_get_card to fetch full detail for any hit'), which tells the agent this is a discovery step, not a detail fetch. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance against other search-adjacent siblings, but the scope statement ('global... across all boards') implicitly rules out board-scoped lookups.

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