Search Ygdria notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real context not in structured fields — results carry noteId for follow-up note tools and snippets are plain text — but it says nothing about result limits, pagination, or ordering for a search operation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the returned-data note is placed last where it belongs. 'through ETAPI' is an implementation detail that adds little for an agent, keeping it just below top marks.

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, and the description only partially compensates by explaining noteId and plain-text snippets. For a search tool it leaves out result caps, ordering, and whether empty results vs. errors are returned.

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 75%, close to the baseline threshold, and the schema documents query, tag, and placementId. The description only echoes the placement/descendant semantics already in the schema and says nothing about includeArchived, the one undocumented parameter.

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+resource ('Search Ygdria notes through ETAPI') and adds scope via the optional placement-subtree restriction. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_by_tag or get_notes, which is the main gap for an agent picking among overlapping retrieval tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: the placement sentence tells you an optional scoping mode exists but not when to prefer this tool over search_by_tag (which is presumably tag-only search) or list/get alternatives. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance.

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