search_delegations

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether results are paginated, sorted, filtered by status, or whether it only returns active delegations. No note about default limit behavior or result ordering.

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?

A single concise sentence that states purpose efficiently with zero filler. Brief and directly to the point, though it could use a second sentence for usage context.

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?

With only a search term and limit, this is a simple filtered-list tool. An output schema exists, so return format doesn't need explaining. However, given the large set of sibling delegation/search tools, the description could better clarify scope (e.g., does it search all delegations or just those assigned to the user?).

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% for both parameters (limit='Maximum results', query='Search term'), so the schema documents both. The description adds little beyond confirming query searches title/description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 'Search delegations by title or description' clearly states the verb (search) and resource (delegations), and specifies the fields searched. It distinguishes from related get_delegations variants by focusing on title/description text search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_delegations_to_person.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative delegation-fetching tools like get_delegations, get_delegations_to_person, or get_overdue_delegations. The agent must infer that text search is for finding delegations by keyword rather than by status, person, or listing.

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