todoist_search_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching by content/name, which is useful, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search returns (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity). For a search tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 core purpose ('Search for tasks by content/name') and adds context ('fallback for when ID is not known') without waste. 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details (e.g., return format, error handling) that would be helpful for a search operation, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 (query, projectId, limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is based on content/name, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('tasks'), specifying it searches by content/name. It distinguishes from ID-based lookup by mentioning 'fallback for when ID is not known', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other search-like siblings like 'todoist_get_tasks'.

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 clear context for usage ('fallback for when ID is not known'), which implicitly suggests using this when task IDs are unavailable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'todoist_get_tasks' might also retrieve tasks).

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