search_tasks

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the burden well: it discloses DataMart eventual consistency with up to 60 seconds of staleness and the default/max result size. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or how results are ordered.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with scope, then semantics, then return shape and consistency caveat. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 nine-parameter search with no output schema, it supplies the return envelope structure and the consistency caveat, plus the fallback to get_task. Ordering behavior and the fact that all filters are optional/no-query-returns-everything are not stated.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The only real addition is that filters combine with AND; the limit default/max restates the schema verbatim.

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?

"Search tasks across all projects in the account" gives a specific verb, resource, and cross-project scope, which separates it from list_project_tasks (single project) and get_task (single record) among 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?

It explicitly routes the agent to get_task when a confirmed single-task state is needed, which is a genuine alternative-selection rule. It stops short of stating when to prefer list_project_tasks over this cross-project search, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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