search_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters; it does not state whether this tool is read-only, whether it respects user context, what the default behavior is when no filters are given (returns all?), or any side effects. This lack of transparency could lead to misuse.

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 concise (two sentences plus parameter list). However, the parameter list uses raw 'Args:' formatting with dash bullets, which is functional but not polished. It could be more structured (e.g., table or enumerated list). No extraneous words, but some parameter descriptions are ambiguous (e.g., 'tag' as a string but not clear if it's exact match).

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 the complexity (6 optional parameters) and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how filters combine (AND, OR?), whether all parameters are optional and what an empty search returns, or how pagination works. An output schema exists (not shown), but the tool's behavior remains underdefined.

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 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It adds basic descriptions (e.g., 'Filter by todo status (incomplete/completed/canceled)'), which clarify purpose. However, it does not specify expected formats (e.g., UUID for area, date format for start_date/deadline). The parameter list is minimally helpful but not comprehensive.

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 'Advanced todo search with multiple filters' which clearly identifies the action (search) and resource (todos). The listed parameters (status, start_date, etc.) reinforce this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_items' or 'search_todos', leaving the agent to infer from the 'advanced' name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings. It does not specify prerequisites, alternative tools, or exclusions. The agent must guess from the name and parameter list, which is insufficient for correct selection.

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