search_notebooks

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses substantive behavioral traits: text is cached in memory, only notebooks with pages changed since the last search (updated_at) are re-read, a hard cap of 20 notebooks per call, a not_searched list for pending notebooks, and per-hit status codes (parent_missing, parent_done). This is exactly the operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 purpose is front-loaded ahead of the caching/continuation mechanics, and there is little wasted text. The second half is dense and slightly elliptical (e.g., 'fetched with one call' is ambiguous), but every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only profile, the description's main burden is explaining the incremental/paged search model — which it does via not_searched, the 20-notebook cap, and the status codes. The missing piece is routing guidance against the notebook read siblings.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Search text, case-insensitive'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about matching behavior, multi-word handling, or result ranking, which lands this at the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource plus the search scope: 'Search notebooks: notebook names, page titles and page text.' An agent immediately knows this is a full-text search over notebook content, not a plain list. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_notebooks or get_notebook, so differentiation must be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains the continuation protocol ('search again to continue') and references get_notebooks for the parent_done status, but never says when to reach for this tool versus get_notebooks/get_notebook. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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