search_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it searches tasks. It does not disclose return format, pagination, read-only nature, rate limits, or how filters interact. This provides zero transparency about the tool's runtime behavior.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It earns no place because it provides no information beyond the tool name. A concise description should pack essential usage details; this one is merely abbreviated to the point of being unhelpful.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, yet the description is a single vague sentence. It gives no overview of the search capabilities, the meaning of filters, or the returned data. The description is wholly inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to correctly invoke this 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 9 parameters with clear Japanese descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter context, such as whether multiple tags/statuses are OR or AND filters or the exclusivity of date range bounds. However, the schema is self-explanatory, so the lack of description is not a major penalty.

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 'タスクを検索します。' (Search tasks) merely restates the tool name 'search_tasks' without adding scope or distinguishing from sibling tools like get_tasks or get_task_detail. It is a tautology that fails to convey what makes this search tool unique, such as the rich set of filters it supports.

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 no usage guidance whatsoever. It does not indicate when to use search_tasks versus alternatives like get_tasks, nor does it mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left without any direction on when to select this tool over its siblings.

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