autotask_search_project_notes

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It reveals a key behavioral trait: fan-out across many projects causes API threshold issues, and references issue #69. It does not detail pagination, rate limits, or response structure, but the disclosed risk is critical for correct usage.

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, front-loaded with purpose followed by a critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It lacks information about the return format, but for a search tool with low complexity, this is a minor gap. The scoping advice adds practical completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about scoping but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'notes on a specific project'. It distinguishes from siblings like autotask_get_project_note (single note retrieval) and autotask_create_project_note (creation) by specifying search over a project. The scope limitation further clarifies 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 warns about fan-out across many projects tripping Autotask's API threshold and advises to scope the parent list first. This provides clear guidance on when to use (specific project) and when to avoid (many projects without filtering), with an implicit alternative of scoping before searching.

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