quick_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'optimized for quick lookups' and mentions 'deep search' capabilities, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'search' implies read). The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, returns, examples) and uses efficient sentences. However, the 'Returns' section could be considered redundant since there's an output schema (context signals indicate has_output_schema: true). The examples are helpful but slightly verbose. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, search functionality) and the presence of both comprehensive input schema (100% coverage) and output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's purpose, shows usage examples, and describes return content. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling retrieval tools, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for a search tool.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'search_types' and 'deep_search' in examples but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'quick search across projects, tasks, pages, and actions' with 'fast, comprehensive search across all Productive content types.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resources ('projects, tasks, pages, actions'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_projects or get_tasks, which appear to be specific retrieval tools rather than cross-content search.

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 implies usage for 'quick lookups and general search queries' and provides examples showing different scenarios (searching all types, filtering by type, disabling deep search). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling retrieval tools (e.g., get_projects for listing all projects vs. quick_search for searching across content). The guidance is present but not comprehensive regarding alternatives.

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