Search Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by noting that results are 'compact summaries designed for large result sets' and that it returns related_to/related_to_type values for building app URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes useful information. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it an excellent example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 13 parameters, no required fields, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key filtering strategy, and output usage for app URLs. It appropriately leaves parameter details to the schema, and the mention of 'large result sets' plus the 'page' parameter addresses pagination implicitly. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on combining multiple filters, but overall it is complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use owner_id ('scope results to a specific user; resolve user IDs with list_users') and clarifies the role of related_to/related_to_type in output URLs. This extra context elevates it above the baseline.

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 explicitly states the verb 'search' and resource 'Recruit CRM tasks', with the distinctive 'compact summaries designed for large result sets' clarifying its purpose and differentiating it from sibling search tools. This is a specific and unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 concrete usage guidance: 'Filter by owner_id to scope results to a specific user; resolve user IDs with list_users.' This gives a clear use case and cross-references another tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_meetings or search_notes, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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