search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses case-insensitive matching, ordering (open tasks first), and the return shape (JSON array), but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether it is a safe read-only operation — gaps that matter for an unbounded 'every task' search.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying one distinct fact — scope, matching rule, ordering, return type — with the most important information first. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers matching behavior, ordering, and return type, which is enough to call it correctly. It omits any mention of result limits or pagination, a minor but real gap for a search that claims to find 'every task'.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The text to look for.' The description adds genuinely new semantics: the text is matched against title OR tag, and the match ignores case. That is meaning the schema does not provide.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Find every task') and narrows scope to title/tag text matching, which distinguishes it semantically from list_tasks. It does not explicitly name list_tasks or get_task as alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

There is no sentence telling the agent when to search versus when to use list_tasks or get_task, and no exclusions. The text-match framing implies the use case (you have a substring, not an ID), but the agent must infer the routing decision.

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