search_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no ranking/scoring semantics, no result ordering, no indication of whether it is read-only across the vault or scoped, and no pagination behavior. 'Full-text' hints at matching scope but nothing operational.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words and the core action stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple 2-parameter read. Still, for a search tool with sibling alternatives and 0% parameter coverage, the description is only minimally viable.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning about the 'query' string (syntax? boolean operators?) or the 'limit' parameter (default 20, but semantics unexplained). It fails to fill the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search markdown notes in the vault'), so the agent knows what it retrieves. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_by_tag, leaving the agent to infer which search to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (search_by_tag, notes_read) that also surface notes. The agent must guess when full-text search is preferable.

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