search_trello_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the search action. It does not reveal whether matching is partial (despite a 'partial' parameter), whether boardIds scopes the search, how results are ordered or limited, or what the response looks like — all critical traits for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words and the action verb front-loaded. It is efficiently written and easy to parse, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since no supporting context follows the core statement.

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?

For a search tool with four semantically meaningful parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is noticeably incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, result-limiting behavior, board scoping, response shape, and differentiation from the many sibling listing/search tools — leaving an agent to guess at essential invocation details.

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?

Although context reports 100% schema description coverage, every schema description is a tautological placeholder ('Parameter limit', 'Parameter query', etc.) that adds zero meaning. The tool description clarifies only the query parameter (search by name, description, or other criteria) and says nothing about limit, partial, or boardIds — 3 of 4 parameters remain semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource in French — 'Recherche des cartes Trello par nom, description ou autres critères' — clearly identifying a search operation over Trello cards by name, description, or other criteria. It implicitly contrasts with siblings like list_trello_cards and get_card_details through its search framing, but it never names a differentiating sibling, and 'autres critères' leaves the searchable surface vague.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over its roughly 48 siblings, particularly list_trello_cards, get_card_details, or list_cards_by_due_date. Whether search is the right operation versus listing/browsing cards must be inferred entirely from the word 'Recherche'; no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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