search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses newest-first ranking, prefix-match semantics for every word, and optional tag narrowing. It does not mention return shape or read-only status, but the core behaviors an agent needs are present.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The search scope is front-loaded, followed by ranking, tag filtering, and matching semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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 search tool with a well-covered schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what is searched, how results are ranked, how tags narrow results, and how matching works. It does not describe the output payload, but no output schema exists and the absence is not a major gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: 'Every word is a prefix match' clarifies how the query parameter behaves, and 'optionally narrowed to one tag' adds precision to the tag parameter beyond its schema description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: full-text search over note titles and bodies. It also adds scope and behavior (newest first, optional tag narrowing) that distinguish it from siblings like list_notes and get_note, which are listing/retrieval tools.

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 it: when searching note content by words. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the choice versus list_notes/get_note to inference.

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