Search the notebook

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds the searchable surface and the return contract (cite keys and note ids), which an agent needs to interpret results. It stops short of noting ranking order, result caps, or case/matching behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the searchable facets front-loaded and the return values trailing. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description rightly discloses what comes back (cite keys and note ids), which is the key missing piece for a caller. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only ranking/limit behavior is unstated.

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% (the single 'query' param is documented as 'Text to search for.'), so the baseline is 3. The description's enumeration of which fields are matched adds useful scope context but no syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

States a specific verb (full-text search) and enumerates the exact resource facets searched — sources by title/authors/journal/tags/quotes/summary and notes by title/content/tags. It also names the return shape (cite keys and note ids), so an agent can distinguish it from list_sources, list_notes, and get_source/get_note 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?

The description implies the use case (you have a text query and want matching entities), but never states when to prefer this over the sibling list_* tools for browsing or get_* for known keys, and gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or scope limits. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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