search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value and implies read-only search, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or failure 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?

The description is dense and well-structured: purpose first, then Args, then Returns. There is no filler or redundant background.

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 simple search tool with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. Minor omissions like authentication or rate limiting are not critical for correct invocation.

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?

The schema lacks property descriptions, but the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: query is the search text, and the limit parameters cap the returned cards/boards. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 first sentence identifies a specific action (search by text) and resource (Trello cards and boards), making the tool's function immediately clear. This also separates it from the sibling create/delete tools.

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 intended use is clear: find cards/boards by text. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but there are no alternative search siblings requiring exclusion, so the context is sufficient.

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