task.search_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies the tool as async, but fails to mention whether it is read-only or destructive, what the return value is (likely a task ID), or how to retrieve results. The single sentence provides minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise (5 words, 1 sentence) to the point of being under-specified. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place because it omits essential context. Conciseness is valuable only when completeness is preserved; here it is not.

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 complexity of an async search task, no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a large sibling group, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain the lifecycle (how to start, track, or cancel the task), return value, or relationship to other search tools. The tool is effectively undocumented.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters ('session_id', 'query', 'limit'). The meaning, format, and typical values for these parameters are left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions. This is a critical gap.

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 'Start async search task.' provides a verb and resource but is vague about what exactly is searched and how it differs from synchronous alternatives like 'binary.search_text'. It adds the 'async' qualifier, which is helpful, but remains to general to clearly distinguish its purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as synchronous search tools or other async tasks. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open session) or situations where an async approach is preferable. This omission is significant given the large sibling set.

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