Project MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions relevance ranking and search scope, but omits critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond the 'limit' parameter, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently adds the relevance ranking detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information about search scope and result characteristics.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and search mechanism but lacks information about return format, error handling, permissions, or system constraints. For a search tool in a task management context, more behavioral context 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning search fields (title, description, content) which partially overlaps with the 'query' parameter description. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context beyond what's in the structured 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 verb ('search') and resource ('tasks'), specifying search scope ('by keyword in title, description, or content') and outcome ('returns matching tasks with relevance ranking'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks' by emphasizing search functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description implies usage for keyword-based searching across task fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_tasks' or 'get_task'. It mentions relevance ranking as a feature, which suggests use cases where result ordering matters, but lacks clear when/when-not statements.

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