Search notes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses several behavioral traits: notes form a tree and results carry full paths, HTML bodies are converted to markdown and truncated to maxChars, and omitting the query lists titles only. These details meaningfully explain what the agent can expect beyond the annotation flags.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'READ ONLY' and the primary purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: tree paths, HTML conversion, truncation, list behavior, and the explicit inability to mutate notes. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description explains what results look like (paths, converted markdown, truncated bodies, titles when no query). It also covers the key edge cases of empty queries and id-based fetching. Combined with the complete input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how the parameters interact: noteId fetches a single note, no query lists without bodies, and maxChars controls truncation. It also interprets the query as substring matching on title or body, which reinforces but slightly extends 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: finds notes by substring of title/body or fetches by id. It also clearly marks the operation as READ ONLY and distinguishes it from sibling tools by noting it cannot create, edit, delete, or share notes. This differentiates it from the many goal/task/schedule tools in the sibling list.

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?

Gives explicit usage context: use it to search/substring, fetch by id, or list without bodies when no query. It also tells the agent when not to use it by stating 'This server cannot create, edit, delete or share notes' and advises saying so rather than looking for another tool. This is clear guidance on both when and when-not.

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