search_threads

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that matches can be of different types (email threads, task cards, WhatsApp conversations) and that results may be empty on small boards. While it doesn't cover rate limits or auth, the behavioral context provided is valuable and sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second covers edge cases and alternatives. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema, the description explains return types and preview snippets. It addresses an edge case (empty results), references sibling tools for alternatives, and fully covers the tool's scope. No gaps remain.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (preview snippets, match types) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's own descriptions of query, boardId, and searchBy.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource 'items across a board', and specifies the search criteria (content or sender) and result format (preview snippets). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming filter_threads and list_threads as alternatives.

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?

Explicitly provides alternatives when search may be unsuitable ('Use filter_threads or list_threads as an alternative') and mentions a specific edge case (empty results on boards with few items). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs others.

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