search_notes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full burden. It discloses case-insensitive substring matching on title and body, specifies returned fields (id, title, last-updated, text snippet), and notes that content is read from local DB. Adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic search operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy, every clause adds value. Efficient and clear.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides sufficient context: search method, matched fields, returned data fields, and data source. Could mention snippet limitation but already does. Sibling tools are listed, aiding context. Nearly complete.

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 0%. The description does not explicitly describe the 'query' parameter (though implied by the search action) and does not explain the 'limit' parameter (default 20) or its purpose. Minimal parameter information beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'search', resource 'notes', and method 'case-insensitive substring match on title/body'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_notes_by_tag and list_notes_in_notebook, which are filtered lists rather than content searches.

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?

Implies use when needing to find notes by content or title substring via the description, but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives among siblings. No exclusions or when-to-use guidance provided.

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