search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the core containment-matching behavior, but it is silent on case sensitivity, search scope, result ordering, and side effects; the presence of an output schema mitigates some return-value ambiguity.

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 one efficient sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter search tool, even though it achieves brevity by omitting usage nuance.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate but bare. It lacks explicit routing relative to sibling tools and does not characterize the result set, leaving the agent to infer key contextual details.

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 single required parameter 'keyword' is mentioned in the description as the term to search for, adding basic meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no detail on matching rules or accepted formats, parameter semantics are only minimally covered.

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 action ('Search'), the resource ('notes'), and the matching criterion ('containing a specific keyword'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_notes and suggest_similar_notes, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to find notes by keyword. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not contrast with list-like or similarity-based siblings such as get_notes or suggest_similar_notes.

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