Search Cards

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavior: the result limit of 20 and the cross-board scope. However, it does not mention which card fields are searched (name, description, etc.), ordering, or failure behavior, leaving some uncertainty for an agent.

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. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the scope and limit. Every word adds value, making it an exemplary concise definition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no annotations), the description covers the essential context: scope, search mechanism, and result cap. The output schema exists, so return structure is handled elsewhere. A minor gap is lack of detail on which fields are searched, but this is unlikely to prevent correct 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?

The schema provides only a required string 'query' with no description, so coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is a keyword, directly clarifying its semantic meaning. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient; no further format details are critical.

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 states a clear verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('cards across all boards'), and a behavioral constraint ('max 20 results'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_cards or get_card_details, which imply narrower scopes. The agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 'across all boards' clearly indicates the tool is for cross-board keyword search, which gives a usable context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the scope is clear enough to avoid obvious misuse.

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