asana_search_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond that: 'Single page (search API caps at 100, no offset)' discloses a hard result ceiling and lack of pagination that an agent must know before invoking.

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 zero waste: the first front-loads purpose and filter capabilities, the second discloses the most critical operational constraint (100-result cap, no offset). Every clause 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 complex 16-parameter tool, the description covers capability, scope, and the key pagination constraint, while strong annotations carry the safety profile and the schema covers parameter details. Minor gaps remain: return-value format is not addressed (no output schema), and workspace auto-detection behavior is left to the schema rather than surfaced in the description.

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 baseline is 3. The description's filter list serves as a useful mental map of the 16 parameters but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each field; the 'filters passthrough' mention is elaborated in the schema's filters parameter description.

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 states a specific verb ('search'), resource ('tasks'), and scope ('workspace'), and enumerates the full filter inventory (text, assignee, project, section, tag, completed, dates, custom fields, sorting). The 'Advanced' qualifier plus filter list clearly separates it from simpler task-retrieval siblings like asana_list_tasks and asana_my_tasks.

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 'Advanced workspace task search with filters' framing implies this is the tool for filtered discovery rather than plain listing, and the openWorldHint annotation reinforces workspace-wide search. However, no sibling tool is explicitly named and there is no when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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