Get User-Owned Zero Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the search is limited to the signed-in user's tasks and covers title and description, but it does not disclose return format or pagination behavior beyond the existing annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name, and every phrase adds useful information about what the tool searches.

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?

For a search tool with four parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description gives only minimal context. It clarifies the search scope but does not explain when to prefer it over search_zero or list_tasks, nor does it describe the result shape or how after/before boundaries behave beyond the schema.

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?

The input schema documents before and after as time boundaries, but q and limit lack descriptions. The description partially compensates by clarifying that the search targets task title and description, which gives meaning to q. However, limit and date-range usage are not elaborated, and schema coverage is only 50%.

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 states a clear verb ('search') and a specific resource ('the signed-in user's Zero task title and description'), so an agent can understand the core function. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like search_zero or list_tasks, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_zero, list_tasks, or search_transcripts. The description implies a search use case but does not state when it is the right choice or when another tool should be preferred.

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