search_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: filtering is applied locally for reliability. However, it does not cover result ordering, how multiple filters combine, or any auth/scoping caveats, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences with no repetition or filler. The criteria are listed first, followed by the scope and the local-filtering caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but thin. It omits combination semantics, return shape, and performance implications of local filtering, yet it covers the core operation and scope well enough for basic invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases several parameters already documented in the schema and adds the account-vs-project scope nuance, but it does not add genuinely new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), identifies the resource ('tasks'), enumerates the filter criteria ('text, status, assignee, priority and due date'), and clarifies scope ('across the account or inside one project'). This clearly distinguishes it from simple retrieval siblings like get_tasks or get_all_tasks.

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 prefer this tool over siblings like get_tasks_by_status, get_tasks_by_priority, get_overdue_tasks, or get_all_tasks. The 'Filtering is applied locally' note hints at internal behavior but does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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