search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly via 'Search' and states it returns 'top matching chunks', which covers the primary behavior. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, auth requirements, or any constraints, leaving the agent to infer the operational profile.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement followed by a clear 'Args:' section with bullet points for each parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded before parameter details.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with an output schema present, so return format details are covered elsewhere. The description sufficiently explains parameters and the search scope. The only gap is explicit routing to the sibling 'list_note_sources', but given the distinct verb and resource, the context is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description thoroughly explains all three parameters: query as a natural-language question, top_k as the number of chunks with a default, and class_filter with allowed values and semantics. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding meaning beyond raw types and defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('indexed class notes (Class XI & XII)'), and the scope ('Class XI & XII'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list_note_sources' by focusing on content search rather than listing sources.

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 implies use for searching content by question/topic but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'list_note_sources'. It does not mention when not to use it or give alternative routing, so usage is inferred rather than explicit.

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