Search Tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states the visibility scoping ("projects the person can see") and that results are short excerpts rather than full content, but says nothing about result limits, ranking, pagination, or minimum query length behavior.

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?

Three compact sentences: what it searches, when to use it, and what to do next. The coverage scope is front-loaded and every clause adds information.

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 steps in to explain the return shape (matches with a short excerpt) and the follow-up path to full reads. For a 3-parameter search tool this is nearly sufficient; only result-count and pagination behavior are left unstated.

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 all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the optional single-project scoping but adds no syntax or format detail, and never mentions the repo parameter.

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?

Names the specific verb (finds) and enumerates the exact resource types covered — tasks, documents, notes, updates, comments, files, links — plus the result format (short excerpt). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling readers like read_document and list_tasks.

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?

Provides concrete example intents ("where did we decide X?", "was there a task about Y?") and routes follow-up work to start_task, read_document, or read_file. It does not contrast with structured alternatives such as list_tasks or project_brief, so the boundary is clear but not exhaustive.

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