search_trello

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral trait that this is account-wide and relies on Trello's own search syntax rather than simple listing. It does not mention pagination.rate limits, or output format, but the output schema exists and the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Search'.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and scope, and the second adds valuable query-language examples. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 that the tool has only two parameters and an output schema already exists, the description is largely complete. It explains the search scope, the query syntax, and provides examples. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit guidance for the limit parameter, but this is a minor omission for such a simple search tool.

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 must compensate. It gives concrete query examples (lavel:bug, due:week, is:open, @username) which explain the query parameter well, but it never explains the limit parameter. The meaning of limit is partially inferable from its name and default, so this is average, not excellent.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('cards and boards'), and a clear scope ('across the whole account'). It also disambiguishes from sibling tools like list_boards and list_cards by emphasizing account-wide search using Trello's own search.

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 clearly implies this tool is for finding cards/boards across the entire account, not within a single board or list, and that it supports advanced Trello search operators. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over the list-focused siblings.

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