Search

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral details: return fields vary by type, IDs require prefix stripping, and UPDATES can be scoped by boardIds/creatorIds. Pagination (limit, page) is also disclosed.

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 clear sections per type and important notes. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence provides value. Minor improvements could be more concise, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (7 params, multiple types), the description covers output behavior for ITEMS, WORKSPACES, and UPDATES, and includes critical prefix handling. However, it lacks return field details for BOARDS, DOCUMENTS, and FOLDERS searches. Output schema is absent, so these details would be helpful.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying that searchTerm is required for ITEMS search (though not in schema), and gives conditional usage rules for workspaceIds, boardIds, and creatorIds (only pass if user explicitly asked). This enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 searches the monday.com platform and lists the types of objects it can search (boards, documents, folders, workspaces, updates, items). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives for user/teams, account info, and groups.

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 explicit guidance on when to use alternative tools (list_users_and_teams, get_user_context, get_board_info) for specific search needs. It also gives specific behaviors per search type, such as required searchTerm for ITEMS and scoping options for UPDATES.

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