search

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

The read-only annotation already signals safety; the description adds behavior by specifying the return shape and instructing to pass a result id to fetch full records. It does not mention sorting or result count, but the no-side-effect nature is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences; the purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information: scope, return shape, and alternative tool. No unnecessary detail.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description gives the exact result shape and next-step guidance. It references the relevant sibling query_items. It omits error behavior and pagination depth, but these are not critical for 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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema, but they are minimal ('Search text', 'Max results, default 20'). The tool description adds full-text context but does not clarify query syntax, whether projectId is an ID or name, or how limit behaves beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'full-text search' and the resource scope ('projects, boards and items'), and distinguishes this tool from query_items by scope. It also describes the return shape, making the tool's purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (search across the organization) and when to prefer an alternative ('When you already know the board, query_items is cheaper and complete'). This is strong usage guidance.

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