tasks_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, what the response format looks like, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this lack of behavioral context is severely inadequate.

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 extremely concise - just 5 words. While this could be seen as efficient, it's more accurately described as under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it does follow a front-loaded structure with no wasted words, earning some credit for brevity.

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 (5 parameters with nested objects, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. A search tool with complex filtering capabilities requires much more context about available properties, filter operators, result format, pagination behavior, and usage patterns to be effectively usable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (including complex nested objects for filters and sorts), the description 'Search tasks with specific filters' only hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter. It completely ignores the 'after', 'limit', 'properties', and 'sorts' parameters, providing no semantic context for any of them beyond what's minimally implied by the tool name.

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 'Search tasks with specific filters' restates the tool name 'tasks_search' with minimal elaboration - it's essentially a tautology. While it mentions 'tasks' as the resource and 'search' as the verb, it doesn't specify what kind of tasks or provide any distinguishing context from sibling tools like 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this search tool is appropriate versus 'tasks_list' or 'tasks_get', nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or limitations.

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