Task Search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the default folder scope, the effect of a filterless call, the limit default (50), the hard maximum (200), clamping behavior for over-max values, and rejection of <= 0. This is substantive transparency beyond a simple 'search tasks' line, though it omits minor details like sort order or date boundary inclusivity.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, and the second packs the essential filter and limit behavior efficiently. Front-loading is excellent.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered, and the limit behavior is well documented. However, with six optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema descriptions, the tool still lacks needed clarity on filter semantics for most parameters. It is usable but has clear gaps that an agent would have to resolve through inference or experimentation.

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, but it only explains the `limit` parameter in detail. The other five parameters (`dueTo`, `dueFrom`, `status`, `subject`, `includeNoDueDate`) are left to name-based inference, with no explanation of matching semantics, range inclusivity, or defaults beyond what the parameter names imply. This is insufficient for confident invocation.

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') and a specific resource ('default Outlook Tasks folder'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools for mail, calendar, OneNote, and files, and from task_get_task by emphasizing folder-wide search rather than single-task retrieval.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for searching the default Outlook Tasks folder, and filters are optional with filterless returning all tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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