search_notes

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that results include a description and passage, and warns that notes can be stale and should be verified before use.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes: search behavior, return shape, staleness warning, and sibling routing.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential gaps: it explains what is returned, warns about stale content, and points to read_note for full-note access.

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 schema fully documents both parameters, including the default and maximum for n and the plain-language query format. The description reinforces the search mode by mentioning meaning and keywords, but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching long-term memory notes by meaning and keywords. It also clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling read_note by explaining that read_note is for opening a whole note.

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 clear usage direction by naming read_note as the alternative for opening a whole note and warning that notes may be stale and should be verified before acting. It does not explicitly state when not to use search_notes, but the sibling routing is clear.

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