keep_find

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains the search scope and return fields (id, title, type, pinned, items), which is meaningful, but it does not state behavior of empty query, limit, sorting, or absence of side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior and return fields are front-loaded, and the practical use case is a single helpful closing clause.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, it covers operation, match scope, return contents, and a concrete use case. It could add explicit empty-query/default-limit behavior, but overall the context is sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain that query matches title or body text, but it never clarifies limit's meaning beyond its default, nor how an empty query behaves. Partial compensation, but not complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Keep notes and checklists') and specifies matching criteria (title or body text). It also lists return fields, and the use-case framing (find shopping list without exact title) differentiates it from retrieve-by-id siblings like keep_get.

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?

It gives a clear situational trigger: use when you do not know the exact title. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'if you do not know its exact title' condition implies when keep_find is preferable to a more exact lookup.

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