quick_search

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read aspect is covered. The description goes beyond by explaining the 'deep_search' parameter semantics and its default behavior, which adds behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, and the description adds value by clarifying the search breadth and depth options.

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 a clear summary, return-section, and examples. Each sentence earns its place by defining purpose, explaining output, and providing practical usage. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core purpose.

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 tool has an output schema and extensive annotations, so the description need not detail return values. Given the complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), the description covers purpose, usage examples, and behavior. The schema + annotations provide technical details, and the description adds qualitative guidance, making it complete.

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 already has 100% coverage, so description baseline is 3. The description adds some value by showing examples of usage, but it does not provide additional details on parameters like page or per_page beyond what schema lists. The search_types parameter is explained briefly in schema, and description reinforces it via examples. Overall, schema covers semantics adequately.

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 'Quick search across projects, tasks, pages, and actions' with a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like list_projects and get_task by focusing on cross-type search. It also provides examples that reinforce its scope, making it distinct and unambiguous.

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 explains it is optimized for quick lookups and general search queries, implying use cases. It gives examples with search_types to show filtering but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like list_tasks for specific searches. However, the examples provide clear context and scenario guidance.

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