search_notes_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return value includes 'Search results with matched notes, relevance scores, and context' but does not disclose other behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance characteristics, or error handling. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose, followed by bullet-pointed usage guidelines and a brief note on returns. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 the many sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description does a good job of differentiating usage. It covers core use cases and alternatives but lacks details on pagination, max results, sorting, and exact return format, which would enhance completeness.

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 67% (query and context_length have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; it repeats the search criteria concept. The 'ctx' parameter has no description in schema or description, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 explicitly states 'Search for notes containing specific text or matching search criteria,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by listing when NOT to use this tool (search_by_date, list_notes, read_note), making the purpose clear.

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 includes a 'When to use' section with three concrete scenarios (content keywords, tags, folders) and a 'When NOT to use' section naming alternative tools with reasons (e.g., 'use list_notes for better performance'). This is explicit guidance for correct selection.

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