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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields and the empty-query behavior, but says nothing about result ordering (relevance vs recency), snippet truncation, permission/workspace scoping, or that the operation is strictly read-only.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then the edge-case behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the returned fields, and the three parameters are mostly covered between schema and description. Missing only ordering/limit interaction and how it relates to get_note for a fully self-sufficient definition.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'query' parameter by explaining that matching is on words in the title or text and that an empty query means 'recent notes'. The workspace and limit params already carry schema descriptions, so the description only needs to reinforce them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search Caddie notes'), states the match surface (title or text, imported notes included), and the return shape (ids, titles, snippet). It is clearly distinguishable from get_note or create_note by resource and operation, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 empty-query fallback ('lists the most recent notes') is genuine usage guidance for an edge case. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus get_note for full content, or versus browsing via workspace, so the when-to-use is only implied.

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