Search tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that results are compact summaries and points to get_task for full detail. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, error cases, or any side effects. For a read-only search tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then immediately provides the key differentiator and routing to get_task. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with six fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: it explains the search mechanism, optional filters, result granularity, and the alternative for full details. It could mention result ordering or default limit, but those are already in the schema, so the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds useful context for query (substring match) and for trader/map filters, but it does not significantly extend the meaning of lang, limit, or gameMode beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tasks/quests by name with substring matching, and optionally filters by trader and/or map. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_task by noting that search_tasks returns compact summaries while get_task provides full details. This gives an agent a precise understanding of the tool's scope and differentiates it from its siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative: use search_tasks for compact summaries, and use get_task for full objectives/requirements/rewards. This is direct, actionable guidance that leaves little to inference.

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