search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'full-text search,' which implies a read-only search of note content, but it does not clarify scope, case sensitivity, result ordering, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It earns its place by stating the core action and method, making it optimally concise for the information it conveys.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return format, pagination, or how it handles limits/folders, and it lacks differentiation from search_by_tag. For a simple read tool, this is not enough to be considered complete.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema; it does not explain how the query interacts with full-text search or any parameter-specific nuances.

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 the specific verb 'search' with resource 'notes' and specifies the method 'full-text search'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_tag and list_notes, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely states what the tool does, leaving the user to infer that it should be used for full-text searching. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or when to prefer search_by_tag or list_notes.

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