Search notes

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it enumerates the result fields, explains the 'why it came back' reason, documents the LOCKED private-note case with an explicit instruction to tell the person rather than silently surfacing it, and states that a miss returns an empty list. Read-only/idempotent are already in annotations, and the description adds real operating context on top.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (read-only, result shape, LOCKED handling, follow-up via open_result, empty result). The domain enumeration in sentence two is slightly long but still purposeful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully: field list, match-reason string, locked-note handling, and the empty-result case. Combined with annotation coverage of the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the loose notion of 'plain words' and 'short ranked list', which hints at the query style and default limit but adds no syntax or format beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (search) and resource (the person's Markdown notes), states the input style (plain words) and the output shape (short ranked list). It also signals the relationship to open_result, so an agent can place it among siblings without opening a schema.

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?

"Use it first, before you answer about their past work, projects, decisions, people or notes" gives a clear priority rule and names the domains it covers. It also points to open_result for full text, though the other siblings (check_index, around_result) are never mentioned, so there is no explicit exclusion or fallback path.

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