search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the search returns complete matching tasks and works 'across all sections.' However, it omits details like result ordering, pagination, case sensitivity, or any special matching behavior. The added context is useful but limited.

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, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is compact. Every sentence contributes value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter search tool, the description is sufficient: it states the scope, return behavior, and intended use cases. It lacks details on sorting or limits, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the query parameter as 'matches headline and content.' The description adds 'across all sections' scope but doesn't add semantic details beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for full 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search tasks by query string across all sections.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task (single task) and list_tasks (list all) by focusing on search across sections.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to check for existing tasks before creating new ones, or to find tasks related to a topic.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it doesn't state when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives beyond the implied comparison with creation tools.

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