autotask_search_project_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: fan-out trips the API threshold. This is more than the basic 'search' implies. However, it doesn't explicitly state if the tool is read-only or has side effects, but the context implies it.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. The first sentence explains purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word is necessary and well-structured.

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 simple schema (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and a critical behavioral caveat. It could be more complete by hinting at the result format (e.g., list of note objects), but for a search tool without output schema, it is mostly adequate.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema (e.g., format or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the tool searches for notes on a specific project. The verb 'Search' and resource 'notes on a specific project' are unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like autotask_get_project_note (single note) and autotask_search_company_notes (different scope).

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 usage guidance: it warns against fan-out across many projects due to API thresholds and advises to scope the parent list first. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the advice is actionable and helps avoid pitfalls.

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