search_asana_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond that profile — no word on match semantics (substring vs token), whether completed tasks are included by default, pagination over results, or rate limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile the bar is lower, but the description still contributes no behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word carries weight and the scoping constraint closes it out. It is short precisely because it says little, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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 5-parameter search tool with 40% schema coverage and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The agent is left without default filtering behavior, result limits, or how results differ from list_asana_tasks.

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 only 40% and the description mentions none of the parameters. Three parameters — limit, api_key, and especially the completed filter — have no description anywhere, so an agent cannot tell what the default result set is or how many results come back.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus resource (tasks) and scope (within an Asana workspace), so the basic operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_asana_tasks or get_asana_task, which is the main thing left to a 5.

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?

'Search tasks by text' implies the usage condition (you have a text query rather than an ID or a browse intent), but no alternative is named and no exclusion is given. An agent must infer on its own that list_asana_tasks is for enumeration and get_asana_task for retrieval by ID.

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