skylight_search_chores

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the search reaches unscheduled/template chores, but says nothing about pagination (the limit param), result ordering, or how broad open-world search behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical that earns its place by carrying the key scoping distinction. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema search tool this is only half-sufficient: the high-level scope is clear, but three undocumented parameters and no return-format guidance leave real gaps. It is minimally viable but not 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 coverage is only 40%: limit, frameId, and include_up_for_grabs have no description in the schema or the tool description. The mention of unscheduled/template chores loosely gestures at include_up_for_grabs but never explains limit, frameId scoping, or the meaning of the required search_query beyond the schema's own text.

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?

"Search chores" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical explicitly scopes it to unscheduled/template chores that the date-range list cannot return, which distinguishes it from skylight_list_chores. It stops short of naming that sibling tool directly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

It implies when to reach for this tool — when you need template/unscheduled chores excluded from the date-range list — but never states an explicit alternative or the conditions that select between them. The routing hint is real but implicit rather than a clear use-this-not-that rule.

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