Teamwork: search

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose—it does not describe pagination, result format, or any side effects. Since the annotation covers the safety profile and the description doesn't contradict it, a score of 3 reflects the limited added value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It directly states the action and scope, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 search tool with comprehensive schema descriptions and a read-only annotation, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It does not explain the response structure (no output schema), but the tool's nature and the parameter descriptions (limit, includeDetails) give enough context for an agent to invoke it. Minor gap: no mention of result ordering or default behavior, but these are inferable.

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% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'Limit result types', 'Only this project', 'Keyword to search for'). The description only restates the search keyword concept and lists content types that are already reflected in the 'types' parameter. It does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Search') with a specific resource (tasks, messages, files, comments, milestones, notebooks, links) and scope ('across the site'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks or get_task by covering multiple content types globally, so an agent can easily tell when to use this tool.

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 implies global search but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., 'use list_tasks for a specific project without search'). The usage context is inferred rather than stated, which is adequate but not explicit.

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