search_todos

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, the default open-only behavior, and how to include completed entries. It doesn't describe output ordering or potential edge cases, but for a read-only search operation these are minor gaps.

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?

Two sentence, no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, and the second explains the important default behavior and how to alter it. The description is front-loaded and each word contributes.

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 a single required parameter, known defaults, and an output schema, this description is largely complete. Its main omission is explicit guidance about when to use a sibling tool instead, such as when a list without name matching is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly stating that matching is case-insensitive and by framing include_completed's behavior in the search flow. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Search to-dos whose name contains `query`' with a specific verb, resource, and matching rule, plus case-insensitivity. It also conveys the default open-only scope and the optional completed search, making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like list_todos or get_completed.

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 provides clear context: by default only open to-dos are searched, and include_completed=True switches to also search the Logbook. It gives a meaningful condition for how to broaden a search, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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