search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the return value (task IDs needed for time registration) but does not disclose other behaviors such as result limits, sorting, pagination, or auth requirements. Since it's a read-only search operation, the description is somewhat adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence gives a practical usage tip. Perfectly concise.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, the return value, and hints at parameter usage. The lack of explicit pagination or result count information is minor given the tool's simplicity and the schema already documenting parameters.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an extra hint that searchText can filter by project name (which is not in the schema's description of 'task name or task number') and suggests using it. This provides additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 searches for tasks the user can register time on and that it returns task IDs for time registration. This is specific and distinguishes it from search_projects or get_project_tasks, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 when to use the tool (when you need task IDs for time registration) and provides a hint to use searchText for filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity in scenarios where other search tools might be more appropriate.

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