search_notes

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

Beyond the read-only/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it does not return body text, matches 3 items at a time, and requires continuing with next_cursor when complete=false to collect all matches. It also adds the per-vault execution detail, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 composed of five compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: search scope, output omission, batch size, pagination contract, and per-vault requirement. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned fields (title, ID, status) and the pagination mechanism needed to gather all results. It stops short of detailing the exact JSON response shape or potential error cases, but the core invocation essentials are present.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that query searches title and body substrings, page_size is effectively 3 per call, cursor is used to continue pagination, and share_id maps to per-vault execution. Although state and reason are not explicitly explained in the description, their meaning is already present in the schema.

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 tool searches Proton Pass text notes by exact substring in title and body, and explicitly lists what it returns (matching title, ID, status). It is specific and resource-bound, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_items or read_field.

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?

It gives useful contextual hints such as 'Keeper import' and instructs to execute per vault. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like list_items or read_field, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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