search_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the search covers both titles and content and is keyword-based. However, it does not disclose result ordering, pagination behavior, or search semantics such as case sensitivity or partial matching, which would add further transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The function is stated first, followed by a clear use-case hint. It is well-structured and easy to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only search tool with annotations covering safety and schema providing default/max for limit, the description is largely complete. It could mention what the response looks like, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the essential context is present.

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 only 33% (only 'project' has a description). The description clarifies that 'query' is a keyword, but gives no guidance on the 'limit' parameter or how project scoping affects results. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more than it does.

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 ('Full-text search over note titles and content') and clearly differentiates from sibling tools like save_note, get_notes, update_note, and delete_note by focusing on search. It immediately communicates the tool's core function.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to find relevant past notes by keyword before starting new research.' This tells the agent when to reach for this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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