Search cards

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the search scope (all boards if not scoped) and the response format (up to 25 trimmed card summaries), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a clear front-loaded verb and resource, followed by syntax examples, scoping behavior, and output limit. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the output kind ('trimmed card summaries') and a count limit. It does not enumerate return fields, but given the moderate complexity and robust annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 already covers both parameters fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: it clarifies that board_id restricts the search and that query supports Trello operators, giving practical context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Search Trello cards'), the resource, and the unique scope (full-text search across all boards or one specific board). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cards by emphasizing Trello search syntax and board-wide reach.

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 explains when to pass board_id to scope the search and notes the default behavior covering every board the token can see. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the search-specific phrasing makes its use case clear relative to list/get tools.

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