cos_task_search

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: the semantic search nature and the fallback to LIKE queries when embeddings are unavailable. This is beyond what annotations provide, though it omits details like error handling or sorting behavior.

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 well-structured with an Args list and Returns section, front-loading the semantic search purpose. Every sentence contributes value, and the length is appropriate for the detail provided.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, behavior, parameter meanings, and return structure. It is complete and self-contained, even listing result fields explicitly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter (query with example, status with enum values, domain, and limit with range and default), making the tool exceptionally usable.

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 'Semantic search over the task store with optional status/domain filters' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing semantic matching and fallback behavior, setting it apart from keyword-based search.

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 says 'Use this when you need to find tasks related to a concept — even when exact keywords don't match', providing clear context for when it applies. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls slightly short of the highest bar.

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