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 mentions 'supports pagination and sorting' which adds useful operational context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with empty results. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality and key features. Every word earns its place: it states the action (search and filter), the resource (tasks), the available criteria, and the additional capabilities (pagination and sorting). No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic functionality and mentions pagination/sorting, but doesn't address return format, error conditions, or how results are structured. For a search tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more context about what to expect would be helpful. The description meets minimum requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions the filtering criteria (text query, status, priority, tags, project) which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Search and filter tasks by multiple criteria'. It specifies the resource (tasks) and the action (search and filter), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ready_tasks' or 'list_projects' which might also retrieve tasks. The description is specific about what it does but lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_ready_tasks' (which might fetch a specific subset) or 'list_projects' (which retrieves different resources). There's no context about prerequisites, when this search is appropriate, or what makes it different from other retrieval tools in the server.

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