search_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that only open tasks are searched, that matching is by substring, and that scope spans all lists and providers. This is sufficient to infer a read-only search operation, though it does not detail field-level matching or pagination.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes: what is searched, the matching mode, and the scope.

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?

The description is adequately complete for a two-parameter search tool with no output schema. It explains the query's role, the provider optionality is handled by the schema, and the scope is explicit. Minor omissions like exact fields matched or result limits are not critical to correct invocation.

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 coverage is 50%: provider is described but query is not. The description adds meaning to query by framing it as a substring used to search open tasks. Provider semantics are already covered in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('open tasks') with a clear scope ('across every list of every connected provider'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like list_tasks or get_task.

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 communicates when to use the tool: when a global substring search across all connected providers is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'across every list of every connected provider' phrasing provides clear usage context.

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