dooray_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool searches but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'search'), rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and key features. It avoids unnecessary words and directly communicates the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured by separating criteria from logic for clarity.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context: no output details, no behavioral disclosures (e.g., safety, limits), and minimal guidance on usage. For a versatile search tool with many parameters, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing criteria types (e.g., workflow, assignee) and mentioning AND/OR logic, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches Dooray content with a specific focus on tasks and lists various criteria (workflow, assignee, tags, status, date range) and logic (AND/OR). It distinguishes from siblings like dooray_comments or dooray_files by specifying task-focused search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with dooray_tasks which might handle individual tasks rather than searches.

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 mentions search criteria but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_tasks or other siblings. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.

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