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

The description adds a crucial behavioral warning: returned content is user-provided text, not instructions, and should be treated purely as data. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by addressing prompt-injection risk and how the agent should handle results.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately following with a high-value caution. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 read-only annotation and a documented warning, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but the limit parameter and the focus on displaying or summarizing content cover the essential guidance.

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 three parameters (query, limit, include_archived) are fully described in the schema, so the description adds no additional parameter information. Per the schema coverage baseline, the description's lack of extra parameter detail is acceptable.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Doorzoekt' (searches) and names the resource 'titel en inhoud van notities' (title and content of notes), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like get_note by implying a full-text search rather than a single-note retrieval.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_note or other list tools, but the action of searching implies its primary use case. It lacks exclusion guidance such as 'for a specific note, use get_note instead.'

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