search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Returns compact summaries' and 'Use get_task for full details' are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures, but the description does not explain result fields, pagination, or default limits beyond what the schema already states.

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?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured: the action is front-loaded, the output nature is stated next, and the follow-up tool is given last. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 schema covers all optional parameters and the description covers the core output behavior plus a path to full details. However, with no output schema and a closely related sibling (list_tasks), the description leaves some ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice and what a compact summary contains.

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%, so all 10 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the generic phrase 'with filters,' so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search tasks') and a key scope ('with filters'), and it clarifies that results are 'compact summaries,' which differentiates it from get_task. It does not explicitly distinguish search_tasks from the sibling list_tasks, so it falls just short of a 5.

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->get_task flow: use this tool for filtered, compact results, then get_task for full details. However, it does not explicitly address when to use search_tasks versus list_tasks or other listing/sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit and incomplete.

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