search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the AND-matching rule, case-insensitivity, result ordering (title matches first), default result count, and the exact result shape. It stops short of covering pagination or the absence of folder/tag scoping, which matters for a search tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the matching rule, then the practical payoff, then ordering/default. Every clause is actionable and none is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return rendering ('title | folder | modified date' plus an excerpt) and result count, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call get_note afterward. Scope limitations (whether search spans all folders) are the only unaddressed item, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely enriches the 'query' parameter by spelling out that all space-separated words must match and that matching is case-insensitive — semantics the schema's 'Words to search for' does not convey. 'limit' gets no extra treatment beyond the default already in 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full-text search across note titles and bodies') and immediately defines the matching model. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_note by explaining that the excerpt means 'you often don't need get_note.' An agent can route without opening a schema.

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 a clear use condition: search this instead of calling get_note when you only need a snippet. It does not, however, contrast against list_notes (browse all) or explain when a broad browse is preferable to a search, so the alternative routing is only partly covered.

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