note_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the core behavior (substring search) and an important scoping restriction (org_id for admin use), but it omits details such as pagination, result format, auth semantics, and error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell when to choose this over note_get_by_query, what the response contains, or whether the result set is limited, which are significant gaps for a search tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to q as the substring and explains org_id as an optional admin scope restrictor, but token is left entirely to inference from its name rather than described.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search notes') and adds a distinguishing matching criterion ('by substring'). This separates it from list/get tools at a basic level, though it does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives like note_get_by_query.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use note_search versus note_list, note_get_by_query, or note_get_scoped. The only contextual hint is that org_id is admin-only, which tells the agent nothing about when substring search is preferred over other query mechanisms.

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