Notes Search Notes

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the operation is known to be safe and repeatable. However, the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever, such as search scope, matching behavior, result ordering, or how folder_id/account_name affect the search. It is not contradictory, but it contributes nothing beyond the annotations.

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 single sentence is short, but it is filler: it restates the tool name and describes transport/delegation rather than functionality. It is under-specification rather than meaningful conciseness.

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?

A search tool with five parameters, including scoping filters and pagination controls, gets no usable context. Even though an output schema exists, the agent cannot know what query semantics, folder/account filtering, or paging behavior are expected. The description is far below the minimum viable level.

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% and the description names none of the five parameters. The agent is left to guess the meaning of query, limit, offset, folder_id, and account_name from their names alone, with no help from prose.

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 only says the tool is 'Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP,' which is a provenance statement, not a purpose statement. It restates the tool name and provides no verb, resource, or behavior, and it does nothing to distinguish notes_search_notes from notes_list_notes or notes_get_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this search tool versus sibling tools like notes_list_notes, notes_get_note, or notes_list_folders. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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