search_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Mentioning the internal search index hints at full-text matching, but nothing is said about operator support, case sensitivity, result limits, ordering, or what a result contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, the brevity reflects missing information rather than tight editing, so it is efficient but thin.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits result shape (paths? snippets?), matching behavior, and limits. An agent cannot predict the return value or how to interpret hits.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already fully documents it ('Texto ou termo a ser pesquisado'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Pesquisa notas') and adds the mechanism ('índice interno de busca do Obsidian'), which distinguishes it from read_note or list_files. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope, but the function is 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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_files or read_note. The agent is left to infer that this is full-text content search rather than file listing.

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