search_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose matching semantics (case sensitivity, substring vs whole-word), whether results are paginated or capped, or what happens when nothing matches. Only the basic read nature of the operation is implied.

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 short and front-loads the purpose before listing arguments. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but remains compact and earns its place by supplying the missing param semantics.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a search tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits result behavior (matching rules, limits, empty results), leaving a real gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: both required parameters are explained, with 'subject' given concrete example values ('DAA or DBMS') and 'query' clarified as a word or phrase. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.

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 (search) and resource (subject notes) with the scope of the search target. It doesn't need to differentiate from siblings, since calculate_cgpa and get_upcoming_deadlines are unrelated, but it also stops short of anything beyond the basic statement of purpose.

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, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The reader can infer it is for finding text in notes, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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