search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and ranking order, which are useful behavioral traits. But it omits details like case sensitivity, result limits, or potential side effects (though search is inherently read-only). It adds some value but lacks rich context.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the operation and adds ranking info. No filler 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?

With an output schema covering return values, plus a simple two-parameter schema, the description sufficiently covers the search behavior and ordering. It lacks explicit usage exclusion, but the core information is present. The missing limit explanation is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'query' as the text matched against title/description, but the 'limit' parameter is entirely unmentioned. This leaves half the parameters semantically unexplained, so score is low.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fuzzy-search' and identifies the resource 'tasks' and scope 'title and description', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tasks (listing) and search_references (searching references).

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?

It clearly states the search behavior and matches against title/description, which conveys when to use this tool for find-by-text scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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