search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via the tier tag and the fact that it returns IDs, but omits details on pagination, filtering behavior, return size limits, or any side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear core statement. The API mapping and tier tag are brief additions, though the API mapping may be unnecessary for agent decision-making.

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 5 filter parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain required context, result format, limits, or how the filters interact, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

The schema has only 20% description coverage, and the description itself mentions none of the parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema property names, leaving ambiguous fields like 'includeData' unexplained.

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 performs a search on tasks/alerts and returns matching IDs, with a direct API mapping. It differentiates from get_tasks by emphasizing return of IDs, but does not explicitly name any sibling alternative for comparison.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other search or get tools. The description only states the basic operation and API mapping, without specifying scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives.

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