upnote_search_notes

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the transparency burden. It explains what is searched and the optional scope, but doesn't describe result ordering, pagination, matching behavior, or the read-only nature beyond the word 'search'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covers the tool's core purpose and optional scoping. No filler or redundant restatement 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?

For a simple search tool, the description plus schema covers invocation: required query, optional limit, optional notebook. The lack of an output schema or return-format details is a minor gap rather than a blocker, given the tool's low complexity.

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 67%, and the description adds meaning to the undocumented 'query' parameter by defining what full text matches (titles and bodies). It also reinforces the optional notebook scope. The limit default remains schema-only, but the essential query semantics are compensated.

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 names a specific verb ('Full text search') and resource ('note titles and bodies'), and notes optional notebook scoping. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that list, open, or create notes.

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?

It says when to use it: when full-text content search across titles/bodies is needed, with optional notebook scoping. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or conditions to avoid it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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