tic_search

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: searching across every note, matching both task text and note titles, and being case-insensitive. The output schema covers return-value details, so no contradiction or missing critical behavior.

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 focused sentences deliver the main function, the scope, an additional matching mode, and a behavioral nuance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and a clear parameter list, the description is largely complete. It explains what is searched, how matching works, and notes title matching. The only notable gap is the meaning of limit and include_done, though their names and defaults make their basic intent reasonably inferable.

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 clarifies the core 'term' parameter by saying it matches task text and note titles case-insensitively. However, 'limit' and 'include_done' are left entirely to the schema defaults and parameter names, which is a clear gap.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('Tic tasks across every note') and adds a second behavior: matching note titles. It also includes the case-insensitive detail, which makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishable from siblings like tic_read or tic_lists.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when looking for tasks or notes by textual content. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to a specific alternative, leaving some room for the agent to infer the boundary against sibling tools.

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