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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are summaries keyed {id, title, folderId, updatedAt} rather than full note bodies, which is real added context, but it says nothing about result limits, ordering, or matching behavior (exact vs partial, case sensitivity).

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler: the search behavior comes first and the return projection second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 one-parameter search tool the definition covers purpose and return shape, which is most of what is needed. It remains thin on operational behavior an agent would want — whether results are capped or ranked — and with no annotations and no output schema those gaps are unmitigated elsewhere.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Texto a buscar", so the baseline would be 3. The description earns a point by clarifying which note fields the text is matched against (title and content), meaning the agent knows the query is not restricted to titles.

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 ("Busca notas del usuario") plus the scope of the match (título/contenido), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of naming the sibling it competes with (notes_list, notes_recent, notes_get), so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of notes_list, notes_recent or notes_get, nor any statement of when-not to use it. The only hint is the phrase "por texto", which implies a text-query scenario but never spells out the choice between searching and listing/recency.

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