search_notes

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the bare action. It does not mention the required body parameter, the response format, or any side effects. Moreover, the annotations state readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are false, which conflicts with the read-only and repeatable nature implied by 'search', creating an annotation contradiction.

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 extremely short, consisting of two words that merely restate the tool's name. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified, which does not earn high marks for conciseness as defined in the rubric.

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, no parameter semantics explained, and a vague body parameter, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It provides no information about how to construct the request body, pagination, or what response to expect.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (body, limit, offset) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('notes') in two words. However, it doesn't specify what kind of search (by ID, by criteria) or what results are returned, and it fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_notes.

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 guidance on when to use search_notes versus list_notes or get_note. The description is too brief to convey any context or exclusion criteria.

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