zk_search_notes

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. It mentions search functionality but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of note objects), pagination behavior (implied by 'limit'), error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are clear and efficient, though the formatting with 'Args:' and indentation is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a decent job explaining parameter semantics but falls short on behavioral aspects. It doesn't describe the return structure (critical for a search tool) or error handling. For a search operation with multiple siblings, more context about differences would be helpful.

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 adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'query' searches titles and content, 'tags' is comma-separated, 'note_type' filters by type, and 'limit' sets maximum results. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't specify allowed note types or tag formats.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for notes by text, tags, or type.' This specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('notes') with three search dimensions. It distinguishes from siblings like 'zk_list_notes_by_date' (date-based listing) and 'zk_find_similar_notes' (similarity-based), though not explicitly named.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'zk_find_similar_notes' (semantic similarity) or 'zk_list_notes_by_date' (date-based listing), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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