autotask_search_project_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'search' which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination details (implied by pageSize parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a search operation that likely returns structured results, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., note content, metadata, pagination), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and search functionality, more context 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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (projectId and pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Search for notes on a specific project' clearly states the action (search) and resource (notes), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'autotask_search_company_notes' or 'autotask_search_ticket_notes'. It specifies 'on a specific project' which helps, but lacks detail on what type of notes or search criteria beyond project ID.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'autotask_get_project_note' (which likely retrieves a single note) or other search tools. The description implies usage for notes within a project context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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