autotask_search_project_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: fan-out across many projects triggers Autotask's API threshold, and references issue #69 for details. This is valuable transparency, though it omits information on idempotency, latency, or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, the second delivers a crucial usage warning. No extraneous words; front-loaded with core functionality. 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 (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key operational nuance (API threshold) and required scope. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the response format or confirm that results are paginated (implied by pageSize). Still, it is mostly complete for a search tool.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., projectId is required, pageSize has default and max). Baseline score of 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 clearly states it searches for notes on a specific project. It uses a specific verb-resource combination, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like autotask_search_company_notes or autotask_get_project_note, though the project scope is implied.

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 explicit guidance: scope the parent list first to avoid API threshold issues. It warns against fan-out across many projects, effectively telling when not to use this tool and suggesting a workaround (filtering by status, company, date range).

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