apple_notes_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states that search is limited to 'title and snippet text,' which is a significant behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention default limit behavior or result ordering, which would enhance transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and scope.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately explains the search function and scope. However, it lacks details on output format and the impact of the limit parameter, which are not covered by the schema (no output schema) and would benefit from elaboration.

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 both parameters (query and limit) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'notes', and the scope 'by keyword in title and snippet text', which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'apple_notes_list' (listing all notes) and 'apple_notes_get' (retrieving a specific note).

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 when to use (keyword search) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like 'apple_notes_by_folder' or 'apple_notes_recent' are not mentioned, leaving the user to infer the best tool for their context.

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