clickup_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses the pagination contract (next_cursor present means a single call is incomplete and the agent MUST loop), plus date-format and timezone semantics. It stops short of stating whether all parameters are optional and what happens if keywords is omitted, so a search with only filters is left unaddressed.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information, with scope and the sibling alternative front-loaded before the finer filter and pagination details. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk behavior (incomplete pagination) and the format of date filters. Since no output schema exists, some burden remains to describe what a result actually contains beyond next_cursor, and that gap is not filled.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the cursor loop contract, which is a stateful behavior the schema only gestures at. Date format and timezone are restated but not extended, and the nested location/asset_types filters are left entirely to the 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search across all workspace content") and enumerates the asset types covered (tasks, docs, dashboards, attachments, whiteboards, chats, forms). It also explicitly contrasts itself with filter_tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from the nearest sibling without opening either schema.

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 gives both sides of the routing decision: use this for keyword/text matching across all content types, and use filter_tasks instead when filtering tasks by field values such as status, priority, tags, or dates. No exclusion is left implicit.

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