search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the search spans all visible projects, that every result includes project_id, and that query searches titles and descriptions. It also reveals the important server-side behavior that query and filter cannot be combined. It does not explicitly state 'read-only', but the search semantics make this clear enough.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a short paragraph to clarify when to use it. It then explains parameter semantics and the critical incompatibility without wasted words. Every sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.

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 an output schema, the description covers what the tool searches, its scope, the key result field, parameter semantics, and a critical usage constraint. It correctly delegates return-value documentation to the output schema. The reference to list_tasks for filter/sort_by syntax is sufficient given that sibling tool exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains query as a text search over titles and descriptions, and clarifies that filter and sort_by reuse list_tasks' server-side syntax. It does not explicitly describe page or per_page, but those are conventional pagination parameters with defaults, and the description adds value on the non-obvious parameters.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Search tasks across every project you can see.' It immediately differentiates this from list_tasks by noting list_tasks requires a project and search_tasks is for finding a task when you don't know where it lives. The result reporting project_id further reinforces its distinct purpose.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of list_tasks, including the exact use case: 'find this task, I do not remember where it lives.' It also provides a clear exclusion, warning that query text search is incompatible with filter and instructing to use one or the other. This gives the agent actionable selection guidance.

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