search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions search functionality but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by limit parameter), default sorting, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects unexplained.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists search criteria. Every element earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 6 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a search tool with moderate complexity, it should provide more guidance on results format or error handling to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by listing searchable attributes (name, tags, due date, status), which loosely maps to parameters like query, tags, due_before, due_after, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 resource 'tasks', specifying searchable attributes (name, tags, due date, status). It distinguishes from siblings like list_tags or read_task by focusing on filtered retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_notes, which has a similar search pattern for a different resource.

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 list_tags or read_task. The description implies usage for filtered task retrieval but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other search/filter tools. With siblings like search_notes available, the lack of comparative context is a notable gap.

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