find

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Search notes with optional filters. Returns matching notes.' It does not mention default filter scope (e.g., whether trashed or archived notes are included), query matching semantics, pagination, auth requirements, or sort order. These are significant gaps 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?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action, containing no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity means it sacrifices useful behavioral and parameter guidance.

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 tool with six filter parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify filter combination logic (AND/OR), default values when filters are omitted, pagination, or what fields are searched by 'query'. The output schema may define the return shape, but the input behavior is underspecified.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameter. It only refers generically to 'optional filters' without describing what query matches against, what colors/labels expect (IDs? names? hex codes?), or how pinned/trashed/archived interact. Some parameter names are self-explanatory, but key semantics like 'query' are left undefined.

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 clear verb ('Search') and a resource ('notes'), and says it returns matching notes, so an agent knows the basic operation. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from siblings such as get_note or list_note_media, since no alternative is mentioned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note (for a known note ID) or list_note_media (for media). The phrase 'optional filters' implies a search use case, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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