autotask_search_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explains pagination behavior (default 25 results, use page parameter) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose any potential side effects or constraints. The transparency is minimal but adequate for a simple search tool.

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, consisting of two efficient sentences. The most important information (purpose) is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the low complexity of a search tool with 6 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and pagination. However, it could briefly mention that filters are available (though the schema covers them) or hint at the typical use case of searching by title, status, or assignment. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its role.

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 score is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only reiterates pagination behavior already documented in the schema parameters. No additional semantic enrichment is present.

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 tool searches for tasks in Autotask. It specifies both the verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like autotask_search_tickets, relying solely on the tool name for distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other search tools). The only usage instruction relates to pagination, but there is no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or conditions for use.

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