clickup_task_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it returns a paginated array of task objects, works across the entire workspace, and supports optional filtering. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, which are common gaps for API tools.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second describes the return format, and the third provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the paginated return format and distinguishing from alternatives. However, it could mention authentication requirements or rate limits given the complexity of searching across an entire workspace. The sibling context is well addressed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning optional space/list/status/assignee filters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool searches tasks across an entire ClickUp workspace with optional filters, distinguishing it from the sibling clickup_task_list by specifying it's for cross-list queries versus single-list tasks. It provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('tasks') with scope details.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('useful for cross-list queries') and when to prefer an alternative ('For tasks in a single list, prefer clickup_task_list'), naming the sibling tool and explaining the trade-off ('fewer parameters, same shape'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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