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 states the search functionality but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of notes with fields), whether results are paginated, how ranking works, or any rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and searchable fields.

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 the tool's complexity (search with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, result format, or behavioral traits like sorting or error handling. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what to expect.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'title, content, or tags', which loosely maps to 'query' and 'tags' parameters, but doesn't provide syntax, format, or interaction details beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('notes'), and specifies the searchable fields ('title, content, or tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tags' or 'read_note' by focusing on search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_tasks', which is a similar search tool for a different resource.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'list_tags' for tag-based queries, or how it differs from 'search_tasks' for task-related searches. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage beyond the basic purpose statement.

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