notes_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, its side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or expected output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it fails to convey necessary information despite its brevity.

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 complexity of 5 parameters (including nested structures like filterGroups and sorts), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the tool's functionality and usage opaque.

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?

The description mentions 'specific filters' but does not explain any of the 5 parameters (e.g., filterGroups, properties, limit, after, sorts) or their semantics. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent lacks essential information to use the tool correctly.

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' restates the tool name 'notes_search' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('notes') and action ('search') but lacks detail on scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'notes_list' or 'notes_get', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'notes_list' for unfiltered listing or 'notes_get' for retrieving a single note. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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