search_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent ('Read only'). Beyond that it discloses non-obvious behavior: searches every unlocked folder simultaneously, results are ranked best-first, private notes appear only as a locked placeholder, and it reports explicitly when nothing matches — details no annotation or schema conveys.

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?

Core information is front-loaded and every sentence carries content. It is somewhat long with several clauses packed into one sentence about results and private notes, but no filler warrants a deduction beyond that.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, yet it briefly does anyway ('ranked results, best first'). Combined with the usage routing, private-note caveat, and empty-result behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates those semantics (private gating, plain-words query). It adds context about searching all unlocked folders but no new syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the person's notes by meaning and words') and specifies the scope ('in every unlocked folder at once'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_notes and read_note, which operate on paths rather than semantic queries.

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?

It gives an explicit selection rule ('use it when you know what a note is about but not where it is'), names two alternatives with their own roles (list_notes for browsing by path, recent_changes for the latest work), and provides the follow-up step ('call open_result with an id'). The private-note condition is also spelled out as a when-to-use constraint.

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