focus_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool searches, with no mention of read-only safety, authentication, pagination, result grouping, or how filters like only_me and include_drafts affect output. This is a significant gap for a search tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, though it includes the unnecessary 'Toggl Focus/2.0' prefix, which slightly reduces precision but does not hurt overall conciseness.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It only covers the high-level search scope but leaves out result format, pagination, filtering semantics, and how the entities are combined. This is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 38%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain the role of keyword, only_me, per_group, task_id, project_id, etc., beyond what the schema already provides. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool performs a 'unified search' across time entries, tasks, and projects, using a specific verb and resource scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual entity types, such as focus_list_projects or focus_get_task.

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 phrase 'unified search across...' implies the tool is for cross-entity keyword searching, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling get/list tools or mention any exclusions. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implied.

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