search_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are filenames ranked by relevance, but it does not clarify search semantics like case sensitivity, partial matches, result limits, or whether the search is strictly read-only.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the result shape, making it easy to parse.

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 one-parameter search tool with an existing output schema, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource, the operation, and the output. Minor gaps remain around usage guidance and search behavior details, but these are not critical for a basic call.

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?

The schema has only one string parameter, 'query', with 0% description coverage. The phrase 'Full-text search' gives it contextual meaning, but the description does not explicitly elaborate on query syntax, formatting, or edge cases, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's semantics from the tool name and context.

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 a specific action ('Full-text search'), the target resource ('the vault'), and the output ('matching filenames ranked by relevance'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes and read_note.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it: when the agent needs to find notes by full-text query. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using list_notes when browsing without a search query, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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