search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of matches (metadata + snippet) sorted by relevance, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention read-only behavior, error conditions, authentication needs, or how limit affects results, so transparency is partial.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, followed by return behavior and optional filters. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with blank lines and code spans is slightly loose.

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?

The description covers the core search purpose, return shape, sorting, and both optional filters. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. Missing context includes query syntax, limit semantics, and when to use get_note instead, so it is adequate but not complete for a tool with no annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains project with a concrete example ('scada-integration') and participant as a surname fragment, adding real meaning. However, it does not clarify the query parameter format beyond 'keywords' or explain the limit parameter's behavior, leaving gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Przeszukaj notatki ze spotkań' (search meeting notes) by keywords and metadata. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_note, list_projects, and get_project_status by stating it returns a ranked list of matches rather than a single note or project data.

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 implies usage: it is for searching meeting notes and optionally filtering by project or participant. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_note or when to use get_note instead, leaving the choice between search and retrieval tools to inference.

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