search_cards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful scope information ('across all boards'), and read-only behavior is self-evident from 'Search', but it says nothing about result limits, pagination, case sensitivity, or whether archived/closed cards are included.

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?

One short sentence with the scope (across all boards) and the matching mode (text content) front-loaded. Nothing is padded and nothing wastes the agent's attention.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say more about what comes back (card list, IDs, ordering) and whether results are bounded. As written, an agent can call it but cannot predict the response.

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 single 'query' parameter is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The phrase 'by text content' adds a small amount of meaning about what the query matches, but no syntax, length, or format guidance is given.

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 names a specific verb (Search), resource (cards), scope (across all boards), and matching mechanism (text content). It is unambiguous and, since no other sibling tool performs search, no alternative needs to be named to tell it apart from assign_card, move_card, update_card, and the rest.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor are any prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. The 'across all boards' phrase hints at the tool's breadth, but the agent must infer that this is the lookup tool to reach for when a card's location is unknown.

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