notes_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states 'Search notes with specific filters' - it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether it's paginated, what the output format is, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a search tool with complex filtering capabilities.

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 concise - a single 5-word phrase. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it contains no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though more content would be beneficial.

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?

This is a complex search tool with 5 parameters (including nested filter structures), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context about filtering capabilities, return format, pagination, or behavioral characteristics. It's completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'specific filters' which hints at the 'filterGroups' parameter, but provides no details about what properties can be filtered, how to structure filter groups, or what the other parameters (properties, limit, after, sorts) do. This leaves most parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Search notes with specific filters' states the basic action (search) and resource (notes), but lacks specificity about what kind of search it performs or how it differs from sibling tools like 'notes_list'. It doesn't clearly distinguish itself from other search tools in the system (e.g., 'calls_search', 'emails_search').

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notes_list' or other search tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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