search_monday_items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that matching is on item name within a board, but omits key search behavior: substring vs exact matching, case sensitivity, and whether results are paginated or capped by limit. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 fits.

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 or repetition. Its brevity costs some needed detail, but the sentence itself 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?

No output schema, and three of four parameters lack documentation in both schema and description. For a search tool, the agent still cannot tell whether 'limit' paginates, whether 'api_key' is required or optional, or what fields come back per item. That is a substantial gap for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% — only 'query' is documented ('Search text'). The description hints that board_id maps to a board and query maps to a name, but says nothing about 'limit' (result cap or pagination) or 'api_key' (authentication requirement), so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb (search), resource (items), and scope (by name within a Monday.com board), which distinguishes it from create_monday_item and update_monday_item. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_monday_items, which retrieves items without a name query, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 on when to prefer this over list_monday_items or get_monday_board, no prerequisites, and no mention of when searching is insufficient. Usage is only implied by the word 'search'.

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