Search Cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says what is returned (name, number, board, list, link) but omits pagination behavior, case sensitivity, matching limits, rate limits, or performance implications of searching across all boards. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 efficient sentences that front-load the core purpose (search card names and descriptions) and then list the return fields. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives some completeness by listing return fields, but it fails to cover behavioral aspects like pagination, case handling, or search scope limitations. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already fully documents each parameter, including the prefix-matching behavior for 'query' and the default/max for 'limit'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, making a baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (search) and resource (card names and descriptions), along with scope (one board or every board the user can reach). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_card or get_my_cards, which retrieve by ID or assignment rather than text matching.

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 implies usage through 'by text, on one board or on every board,' giving some context, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cards_by_list_id or get_my_cards. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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