Search notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: case-insensitive matching and the result format. However, it does not mention result ordering, whether the query is plain text or regex, or how limit interacts with matching — leaving some behavior opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the core action and immediately gives the result format. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

For a simple search tool, the description plus schema covers the invocation needs: query behavior, return shape, default scope, and limit constraints. It is slightly incomplete only in not comparing with list_notes or explaining result ordering, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the case-insensitive detail but does not otherwise clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides for query, limit, scope, and project.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Case-insensitive text search over note contents'. It also defines the return shape ('matching lines with their note path and line number'), which makes the tool's function precise and distinguishable from the sibling tools like list_notes or read_note.

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 usage: use this when you need to find text within note contents rather than listing or reading notes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names and context.

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