search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic functionality (search returns a list) without detailing search granularity, case sensitivity, or performance. The tool's behavior beyond the schema is 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 brief and structured with a main sentence, Args, and Returns. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists, but overall no wasted words.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 parameters, output schema present), the description omits important usage context like whether search is full-text, supports operators, or is limited to note titles. This leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description should provide meaningful semantics. It merely restates the parameter names and default value for max_results, adding minimal insight. For example, it does not clarify query syntax, length limits, or search scope.

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 the tool searches Apple notes based on a query, which is a distinct operation from sibling tools like list_notes, get_note, create_note, etc. The verb 'search' and resource 'Apple notes' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_notes or get_note. The description does not specify search behavior (e.g., full-text vs title-only) or context where search is appropriate.

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